|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1672 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... I would like to talk about what evidence geologists have for their Geological Time Scale landscapes which are based on a stack of rocks with dead things in them that are best explained by the Flood. How does the flood explain the temporal-geographical distribution of species? It doesn't, it fails miserably.
Oh I know they have evidence, I just want to see it spelled out because the usual presentation to the clueless public makes bald assertions about things they couldn't possibly know about, ... Like you on the age of the earth? If you can't explain the dating methods, cannot show that they don't work then logically you have to accept their results until such time as you can demonstrate with conclusive evidence that they are wrong.
... clueless public makes bald assertions about things ... You're mixed up -- that's how YEC pseudoscientist fakirs work, this is well documented.
There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic: A magazine, one that caters to the scientifically literate, using generally accepted science as given.
So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations. ... Again, this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood. There are no scientific "different possible interpretations" -- just delusions of a few people living in fantasy worlds. A scientific "different possible interpretation" would be based on actual objective empirical evidence and presented in a scientific journal, not a magazine like the National Geographic. There are no such papers. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But others on the thread are saying the opposite, that my information is from a popular source where we shouldn't necessarily expect to find scientifically literate readers, so I'm directed to more scholarly sources where the background information is available. And yet nobody is saying that the National Geographic should be providing the level of science detail that you complain is not present. When I talk about scientifically literate, I mean people that have had high school science and have a basic understanding of what is science and what is fiction.
But my objection is that the public is being presented with a flat out assertion on the level of known fact without even a smidgen of tentativity, factual knowledge that nobody could possibly have about a time millions of years ago. And that shouldn't be the case with scientifically literate readers either if science is what it is claimed to be. The public is being presented with a journalists article and not one required to be a scientific article. It is like a picture reconstruction of a fossil. Accepting the evidence of an old earth is part of what scientific literacy is based on -- there is so much such evidence that it is delusional to think otherwise has any support.
he NG writeup is TYPICAL, that's my point. ... Typical of a magazine article. If you want a more scientific treatment you are looking in the wrong place, and then using that as a straw man argument to discredit science -- that is your (rather silly and hopeless) point.
... There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of this flat out assertive way of presenting both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution, which has been driving me crazy since before I became a Christian or knew anything about creationism. I hope to get to providing some examples of this. ... There are LOTS AND LOTS of examples of scientific articles that flat out validate both Old Earth Geology and the Theory of Evolution to such an extent that they are generally accepted as the explanation for the past. There is no "Young Earth Geology" that stands up to the evidence, there is no alternative theory to evolution that stands up to the evidence. That you have had trouble understanding this is more about you than about how material is presented to you, certainly you have been given many examples of the scientific reality since you began posting, and it is evident that the problem with understanding is not in the explanations.
... . I don't buy the explanation that you can't treat the public with the respect of giving some explanation instead of acting like you know it all and they just have to submit. Yeah, journalists are such nazis forcing their articles down your throat and requiring that you accept them without question. As has been said, they are writing for an audience. Based on generally accepted science, and not cater to a small segment of the population that doesn't accept scientific reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... all that's missing is a brief sentence about how the particular climate attributed to the time period was determined by the presence of salts in the Jurassic rocks, and maybe a reference to a source discussing it. ... Well I agree with that. I looked at the rather brief article and then to see if they listed any source material. This could be a result of new management:
quote: The National Geographic we grew up with is no more, it is now a sensationalist rag. The brevity and low level of information of the article is likely because of editing. So you need to blame Rupert's people not scientists for this lapse.
Well, I qualify, had basic science courses in both high school and university, enjoyed it, was good at it; but you don't really mean that, you mean that I still believe what I was taught in the classes about evolution, and of course I no longer do. So you understand the scientific basis. It doesn't matter what you believe or accept, what is true will remain true regardless of your beliefs. Evolution happens every day in every generation of every species. The theory of evolution is that this is sufficient to explain the natural history of life on earth. So far no other explanation has come close. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
1. I disagree that believers in the Flood need to try to deal with all the questions about how the Flood did this or that, and agree with mike the wiz on that subject. That's why I wasn't interested in that thread. ... So when you say the flood is the best explanation of geological depositions, shouldn't you annotate that with the provisio that it is only a partial explanation based on some evidence and that other evidence has been ignored, and thus it is a tentative conclusion ... ... since you are asking for that from the National Geographic article? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
They claim that secular science is blinded since the secular scientist sees no need to search any differently. The problem with their arguments is that they have no guidebook on how else to teach and show the secular scientists how to look. So they are blind searching in the dark, and think science is blinded ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
From Live Science, What Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution? And from the same site, a summary:
Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution ... SO: Is all this acceptable as a definition of the Theory of Evolution? Any objections? Darwin's theory of evolution (by natural selection) is part of the modern theory of evolution, but not all of it, as other processes (like genetic drift and how genetic inheritance and mutation cause variations) have been added, so no, that is not acceptable as a full definition of the theory of evoution. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No, I assume it would split into rivers or streams first. Where are those other rivers and streams? Why didn't they carve grand canyons of their own?
If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? (a thread you failed to comment on):
quote: Those questions are directed at you to explain. Your model of sheet flow becoming streams would mean that both the northern route and the southern route would be affected and have ended up with streams of their own. There is NO evidence of such stream formation in either of these regions, instead streams developed perpendicular to these indicated flow paths and actually cut through higher and higher ground to reach the Grand Canyon. How? If you can't explain it then your model fails, badly and irrecoverably, such a total failure that you should be embarrassed to repeat it. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : subtby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
May I now ask how it can be that a source that calls itself scientific can give an unacceptable definition of evolution? Because it set out to explain Darwin's original theory, not the theory of evolution or the process of evolution. If you want a good source try:
quote: I predict you won't get far because of cognitive dissonance causing you to reject what is said. You will find that it is well supported with evidence and description of how the conclusions are reached. A good intermediate between your (silly) example and a university textbook description, gauged for elementary, middle and high school classes. Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And why do you enjoy your straw man stuff so much> No I do NOT accept "evolution" by which any reasonable person would know I meant the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. Of course I accept MICROevolution. quote: The change in size distribution from one layer to the next is MICROevolution. The overall change from the bottom to the top, including the divergence into two different species, is MACROevolution. There is no other evolution: both are covered by the Theory of Evolution. It's that simple:iIf you accept one, you accept the other. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
We're talking about water running across a huge plateau RAZD. ... You are, not anyone else.
I'm really sorry, I like diagrams but I really can't figure out what yours is trying to say. I wish I could. If you take a cross section perpendicular to the GC (ie WNW to ESE) the areas with the black arrows are LOWER than the rims of the canyon. The is no evidence of NNE to SSW (ie parallel to the GC) rivers, streams or even rivlets. Why not? If water was flowing across these areas it should leave erosion patterns of such flow. AND because they start lower than where the GC crosses the Kaibab they should have their own "grand canyons." None are observed: why not?
See above. They probably mostly got channeled into the Grand Canyon, So flood water flows uphill?
... Cracks form in those layers. They start to break up. The water is starting to move, the cracks widen, chunks of the broken up strata are washing into the cracks as well as across what eventually becomes the Kaibab Plateau. ... It's where the tectonic upheaval pushed up the Kaibab Uplift which created the strain in the uppermost layers which caused the cracks in the strata which eventually became the canyon as the uppermost strata broke up and the water channeled into those widening cracks. Those black lines on the picture are fault lines from the uplift. Most are perpendicular to the canyon rather than the alignment you claim. Of the many shown only one on the Kaibab Plateau flows to the canyon and has carved it's own subcanyon. At the second dark green (higher) area a fault line parallels that part of the canyon and intersects it at the northern end, but there is no canyon, no evidence of flow along that fault line, and there is even a tributary stream to the GC that crosses it. Another epic fail. Valid explanations cover all the evidence, and are supported by that (objective empirical) evidence, not just preferred, or made up, evidence forced to fit a fantasy scenario. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Not understanding a diagram is not a refutation, it means you should try harder.
Here's another post, Message 7 from If Caused By Flood Drainage Why is the Grand Canyon Where It IS? with more detail on the two low spots, particularly the northern route:
quote: 1,610 ft is a LOT of delta elevation to wave away and ignore. Repeat: NO sign of water erosion across this section: no canyon, no river, no stream, no rivulet, nada. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Dickinson's paper was published in 2013: Rejection of the lake spillover model for initial incision of the Grand Canyon, and discussion of alternatives. The reasons it cites for rejecting the idea were that the lake never achieved appreciable depth, the elevation isn't compatible with lake spillover, multiple river canyons are present, the timing of drainage reversal wasn't right, and a couple others. Well, I also have trouble with the dates for that lake spill over model being ~5million years ago, as the speleothems (Age of Grand Canyon and Cave Speleothems ) show older dates for the formation at 17 million years ago, at the western end and that the upper end dates to about 800,000 years ago. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you have an extra f at the end of the arizona map image link
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That being said, I don't think you need to precisely identify the boundaries of the Kaibab Uplift. The point is that the Colorado River runs directly through the uplift, and through another uplift further west. Since water doesn't run uphill, this needs to be explained. Here's RAZD's image:
Anyway as I picture it the uplift occurs at the end of the Flood when there are two miles worth of sedimentary layers on top of the Kaibab Plateau and the whole canyon area. The uplift creates strain on the upper strata as they are pushed upward, causing cracks that eventually form the canyon. The upper strata break up and wash away, some of it into the cracks which scour out the canyon area. And the thin black lines on the picture are the actual tectonic fault lines in the area. The open minded observers will note that none parallel the canyon, but most run perpendicular to it. One at the east end drains the Kaibab plateau from the north side (from the "N" at the end of "CANYON") and has formed a canyon, presumable the "model" Faith assumes for the whole canyon. Another at the west end runs NNE-ish and comes near the canyon wall at one point, and up to the canyon at another with no canyon formed. The total lack of any alignment of the canyon with a tectonic fault line is evidence against this big crack model Faith is espousing. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1633 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Article by Emil Silvestru at Creation website:Caves and Age Another handwaving creationist, doesn't explain the different ages of uranium with the layers formed, with most decayed (oldest) trapped in the inner layers, covered by successively younger (less decayed uranium) layers. In other words it says nothing about the actual empirical objective evidence.
It appears we have a conflict between common sense and radiometric dating here. Only if you ignore the actual evidence. As usual. See Radiometric Dating - Christian Perspective for a better source of information on this dating technique.
Not a problem for the Hopi Lake spillover theory Except that there is no relationship to the Grand Canyon speleothems.
There's more at the web page Which is a lot of speculation around one area, and it lacks any good reference to actual published science articles: the only recent paper (ref 4) actually contradicts what he says:
quote: BOLD added. Seems to validate the age derived rather than question it, in spades. The only other non-creationist pseudo-reference is a 1987 article ... again, the practice of creationists using old information ... The site is junk-science for the gullible wanna-believers, not valid science. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024