|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hydrologic Evidence for an Old Earth | |||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Tritium is H3...
(that should be a subscript, but I'm too lazy to look up how to do it). Tritium is VERY different from iridium (considering it's three H atoms and H is the lightest element) Edited by AdminModulous, : Just added the sub tag for the subcript. Hope that's OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Unless it occurred in a worldwide flood. And remember, there ARE fossils in the layers, and at the rate of deposition required by the Old Earth model, there's no way any of them would have been able to fossilize. Wby not? Would you care to back this up? Oh wait... you can't because you don't have a clue what you are talking about
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
has to be wrong if it does not match 100% with the bible Actually it's even worse.... it's if it doesn't match with Faith's own personal interpretation of someone else's translation of the bible
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Hey, that was a very commonsensical suggestion based on what I was told by evo practical jokers, that what needed explanation was why so many bird fossils are found with dinosaurs if position of burial had nothing to do with evolution but only with location of the animal at the time of the flood. It involved thoughts about animals seeking the highest possible ground. Nothing more commonsensical to my mind, given the circumstances posited, than that the dinosaurs themselves must have been the highest ground in their locale from the point of view of the birds. OMG.... you can't be serious... did you graduate high school?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
We have looked at what you say:
Over and over you have been told that you don't know what the facts of the geology are. You make statements about the nature of the geology that are simply wrong. Starting from wrong facts makes it unlikely you can reach right conclusions. However, even from that starting point it has been pointed out that your conclusions don't stand up. This has been pointed out to you many times too. Being unable to absorb new information can make someone look pretty foolish.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5833 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
I find it very odd that a written testimony to a physical event is not regarded as scientific evidence. Yes, just like all the evidence we have for medusae, cyclops, hydra, poseiden, zeus, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
What I meant was science does not prove things, it provides theories supported by overwhelming evidence. Therefore I agreed the term prove is unwarranted but unfortunately I was not clear about my exact meaning. Of course I know the past is the key to the present and therefore agree with your post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
It is difficult for me to envision any kind of catyclysmic event that is going to producing a confining layer where one did not exist before without also having a drastic impact on the aquifer layer - essentially destroying it - at least at that particular location, which amounts to the same thing. A somewhat cataclysmic event, volcanic eruption with an accompanying lava flow of impermeable basalt, has created vastly more confined aquifers than such events ever destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6353 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Tritium is H3... (that should be a subscript, but I'm too lazy to look up how to do it). Tritium is VERY different from iridium (considering it's three H atoms and H is the lightest element) This isn't right. Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen which has one proton and two neutrons - as opposed to 'normal' Hydrogen which has one proton and no neutrons and Deuterium which has one proton and one neutron. The symbol for Tritium is 3H Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
A somewhat cataclysmic event, volcanic eruption with an accompanying lava flow of impermeable basalt, has created vastly more confined aquifers than such events ever destroyed. That's the kind of thing I was wondering about. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
This is exactly what I don't think it proves. As I go on to say and you even go on apparently to agree with. I do not agree with you that the past is a helter skelter of anything and everything anyone says it is, regardless of evidence to the contrary, that can't be understood except by misreading an obvious parable. I do agree that science does not prove, it creates theories based upon overwhelming evidence.
But is it completely impossible that an upheaval of some kind, say an earthquake, within the last four or five millennia created the current situation of the underground rocks, in fact created the confined situation itself? It is so improbable to say worldwide and simulataneous earthquakes affected all geologic formations that it approaches impossibility as .999999999999 approaches 1, as there is absolutely no evidence, and indeed a huge amount of counter-evidence. But one can't completly rule out Last Thursdayism, is that what you are arguing for? Edited by anglagard, : sp. Edited by anglagard, : clarity Edited by anglagard, : more clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Fine, I will remember to bring up the Bible only in the appropriate fora from now on, but your ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said doesn't do science any credit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
no matter what the evidence You have evidence? Well, give it to us, publish it so geologists can evaluate it. If it's real evidence it can take years for the discussion to develop but as Relativity and Quantum Mechanics came to replace a Newtonian clockwork universe, yes, we would change our opinions. If you have evidence that the earth, the universe is young, please post it. If you have evidence that a year long world wide flood took place and in that year all the strata were deposited by all means give it. But I'm talking about evidence not ad hoc science fiction maybe: like maybe the extra water came from Mars and that's why Mars is so dry now, and then God sold the excess to some aliens who needed it for their desert world. yeah, that's the ticket, space aliens, see, the Biblic story of the Flood taken from the Babylonians is top notch history and science. NO, I mean studies, numbers, physics, real theories, real evidence, not creationist pie in the sky wishful dreaming up spurious explanations. And no, that the story has been written up in Genesis is not evidence. That you believe the Bible over what science you learned studying engineering is not evidence. It's your personal belief. The physicists and geologist who do radioactive dating are deriving numbers and cross checking them. Is the process fool proof? Absolutely not, but the activity of scientists over a period of time refines and improves the data. And at least they have real data, not ancient myths that are culturally imbued with emotional rewards for some people. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
I love your freedom to suppose all sorts of couldawouldashouldas, which I bolded in the above, about the flood scenario, as if you understood exactly what a worldwide flood would have done. Well, do you have data that disputes the data Angle gave about the rate water flows through aquafers? His point was that it doesn't go very far at all in a year. Why do you think that is wrong? And can you point to any studies that found differently? That found large volumes of water moving quickly through rocks? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Another tedious recitation of the Science Uber Alles Credo and a saluting of the Science Flag. Ho hum. Faith once again has stuck her fingers in her ears and is not listening. Ho hum.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024