Originally posted by hansgeorg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Exposing the lies in Jorge's Flood "evidence".
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostRoy:
Well, you're still being so vague I don't know what you want, except like I said you seem to want every detail.
So far your behaviour is entirely consistent with you having made that up.Let me ask you a question for an example, not sure if this is what you're going for or not, though. Would you agree that in a global Flood scenario, the behavior at one site could be strongly affected by the details of surrounding sites, for events at the same time?For example, the shape of the land affecting currents flowing over it. (Obviously, the definition of "site" gets tricky here, though.) If yes, do you think the water could make local site analysis trickier than in a typical OE scenario of ordinary weather in general, etc.?
Take the scenario of underwater canyon erosion, from earlier discussion, due to sediment-laden currents (one of the causes of underwater channels). If there's an obstruction in the way of where the current would otherwise go, this will affect the channel from that point on. Yes?
Obviously the OE scenario isn't free of such things, of course. And there's much more time involved, so I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I'm curious what you think.
I'm also curious if you could give an example of what you say OEs have done satisfactorily. And not argument by link or vague statements; clearly give the details in your own wording. And be sure to include the weaknesses. This would go a long way toward clearing up what it is you want (maybe it feels clear in your mind, but I can't read minds; I can only go by what little you have said).
Despite your claim that there are "many detailed scenarios described" from a YEC viewpoint, I have yet to see anything similar. Nor do I ever expect to because, quite frankly, flood geology is complete bunkum that relies on its followers not realising that its advocates are cherry-picking data they can explain and ignoring the vast majority of detailed stratigraphy in favour of a few vague claims about mid-ocean venting, hydrological sorting, inrushes, floating vegetation mats, etc that don't hold up under close inspection.Roy, another thing. You're the one who is so curious about this, so here's a suggestion to avoid the problem of too much time being wasted...
And if you really want to stop wasting time, as opposed to doing the YEC shuffle, you could start answering direct and simple questions such as this one:
You have claimed that all deposits from the Cambrian to the Upper Cretaceous were deposited in a year-long event that started with an upwelling at the mid-ocean ridges. And that trace fossils seen in Upper Cretaceous deposits were caused by animals that survived this event long enough to walk on sediment layers deposited near, but not at, the top of the deposits. And these sediment layers hardened and were later overlaid by subsequent inrushes that deposited additional material later in the event. Then some of the layers were tilted through 90 degrees. But you won't say what the sequence of events was at any one specific site, or give any quantitative detail at all. Correct?
rather than avoiding them.Quote key passages from the AIG link you cited, showing what their suggested solution is, and then explain (notice you didn't) why it allegedly doesn't workSo instead of wasting my time, spend yours. Should be reasonable, no?
After I stated that "I didn't say that YECs had produced fewer detailed scenarios of rock strata formation, I said I have seen none" you responded "Yes, there are many detailed scenarios described. If you haven't read them, that doesn't make them not exist."
Yet despite repeated requests for an example, you have yet to produce one despite it requiring, if what you said was true, only a quick search on Google.
How about you stop wasting my time, and actually produce something you claimed was readily available?
P.S. In all my years of discussing origins I've yet to find a YEC advocate who wasn't dishonest, or hypocritical, or both. I'm not at all surprised that you're proving no different.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually the Black Sea flood is dated by many methods and you reject all dating methods, but not C14 dating. You reject science as indicated, and responses from others concerning dating methods has been shown to be nothing more that bizzare and dishonest, and not remotely based on actual science, as reflected in the following nonsense.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostImpossible based on the objective physical evidence in these formations. For example; The carboniferous formations contain patterns of vast meandering river systems, varved strata, strata containing, mud cracks, soil formation, eroded land surfaces with weathered regolith like we see today, stand of forests with stumps with extensive root systems and soil formation, numerous fine fossil tracks of worms, and other small animals in layer after layer for thousands of feet.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhat you consider has no basis in science.
This proposal is impossible simply by basic high school knowledge of the nature and chemistry of Salt.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostBasic high school chemistry is all you need to know that your bizzaro proposals concerning formation of vast regions of limestones hundreds of feet thick containing vast coral reefs is impossible. Gypsum in the vast deposits must also take into consideration basic chemistry, which will not work in any such flood considerations.
Your proposals violate virtually all fundamental laws of physics, and basic principles of chemistry, and the actual geologic evidence as well. Your proposals concerning the formation of limestone and salt cannot be replicated in simple lab experiments, and the sedimentation experiments you presented were terribly misleading and only apply to sand deposits.
Then tell me if the dig has given possibilities of disclosing one coral reef separately after another.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostCarbon 14 testing is not related here. Glaciation and the Ice Ages are based on actual physical evidence of the action of ice, and cannot be explained by floods.
And cosmic radition seems to be productive of cold.
As for how Oard relates ice age to Flood, I leave that to him, he is meteorologist.
And obviously, both his and my work are about explaining, not about proving, ice age, which we both considered tok place mainly after the Flood.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bret View PostAnd yet we never find Placoderms with marine reptiles or cetaceans. We never find marine reptiles with placoderms or cetaceans. And we never find cetaceans with placoderms and marine reptiles. How does the Flood explain such sorting of large marine life?
We do see diversified faunas, both land and sea, now, why not back then?
* Sorry : Praepusa vindobonensis.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostDo you think that saving Noah and his family was God's only goal during the flood? Didn't God also have the goal of providing a witness to the surrounding people and an opportunity for them to repent? Didn't God also have the goal of providing through Noah a typological picture of salvation through Christ? Sure, God could have told Noah to take a trek, but then these other goals would not have been fulfilled.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThere are similar questions that could be asked about many events.
- Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down?
- Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness?
- Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness?
One reason that immediately comes to mind is that if Noah had simply been told to leave the region he would not have been able to bear witness to the wrath of God.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostOne reason that immediately comes to mind is that if Noah had simply been told to leave the region he would not have been able to bear witness to the wrath of God.Originally posted by Roy View Post...until he returned.Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDon't you mean "if."http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View Posthans: For the record, "Mount" Ararat is a recent volcano. The account refers to a mountain in the region of Ararat. Apparently it can't be that mountain (well, unless its current surface added onto an older, smaller volcano, I guess). If memory serves... (1)
A good example of the poetry I'm talking about is in Job when people are called worms and maggots. (Job is a poetic book, different from the historical reports like Genesis.) (2)
Re: Mark 10:6, I covered that earlier, but I'll elaborate in case it was unclear. Mark doesn't specify what is meant by "creation" there, and since humans are the immediate context, it's obvious the focus is on them. He could mean "the world of humans". Or life, or Earth's surface as we know it. If the "stars revealed" theory is right, the third option would be what Genesis is describing, and this NT statement would simply be referring to it. (3)
(2) First hit on OT worms involving book of Job is Job 25:6.
Here is all of chapter 25: [1] Then Baldad the Suhite answered, and I said: [2] Power and terror are with him, who maketh peace in his high places. [3] Is there any numbering of his soldiers? and upon whom shall not his light arise? [4] Can man be justified compared with God, or he that is born of a woman appear clean? [5] Behold even the moon doth not shine, and the stars are not pure in his sight.
[6] How much less man that is rottenness and the son of man who is a worm?
Book of Job says Baldad the Suhite says so, and Baldad the Suhite obviously expressed sth like a Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity in among other things the figure of speech of calling man a worm.
This does not mean Book of Job is using a figure of speech in attributing these words to Baldad, nor that the Book of Job subscribes to Total Depravity.
(3) Creation normally does not carry such limited senses.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostYeah..... sorry, you're trying the "cylinder of water" argument on the wrong guy. I'm well aware of that argument and use it myself against certain nutty skeptics. My view is the water seeks a level. But that doesn't prove the level is above ALL mountains. Right?
Why do you find fish fossils up there then?http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostThe passages confirming mountains covering are not quoted as from God; they're narrative, and lead directly into the narrative that clearly shows the Ark passengers perspective by the need to release birds to figure out if the waters had receded. Note too that I subscribe to a somewhat complex view of the signatures to the accounts in the Genesis compilation; basically before the Abraham section they are ending signatures. Both of these narration details are within the account attributed (in my interpretation) to "sons of Noah". So the same narrative perspective would be natural to it.
...
I also noted earlier that if they couldn't just look out the vents and see that the waters had receded, they probably couldn't see whether there were distant mountains on the horizon either, and 15 cubits could easily simply be the depth that the Ark rested in the water (its height was 30 cubits). So this could simply mean they didn't notice it hitting anything, and "under the whole heavens" in that case would have to be just a way to say "everywhere we went".
We must be clear that the narrator's perspective, in any historic book, is the word of God.
This means that if Noah had been for instance ignorant of Himalayas or Andes, this would have put the word of God in error, if they weren't covered too.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostI'm comfortable with explaing it as about the pre-Flood habitat. Vienna was at a beach with a seal (praepusa nussdorfensis to paleontologists*) and Linz was some kind of sea environment with a whale (Cetotheriopsis lintianus to paleontologists).Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Without looking too much on the link at first:
Originally posted by Roy View PostSo Vienna was at a beach with a seal... and was offshore continental shelf with coquina shell beds
Originally posted by Roy View Postand was a river floodplain and a delta lying beyond a river outlet
I feel good about having predicted one "reverse Danube" as one of the rivers of Paradise : Hevilah South Arabia, Ganges, turns up, flows West along Syr or Amu Daria, into what is now Black Sea and from there on to Vienna.
Alternative : Hevilah or Ethiopia, up Nile, up through Mediterranean into what is now Black Sea, from there a "reverse Danube" into that lagoon which was Vienna before the Flood.
Originally posted by Roy View Postand the middle of a shallow lagoon...http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostGive me one exact location where you have hundreds of feet of one coral reef above another preserved.
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThen tell me if the dig has given possibilities of disclosing one coral reef separately after another."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostSorry, I can't make sense of what you are saying here.
[Edit : supposedly, and if grown in situ].
Going to their site:
"And there is one more simple reason why such high estimates assumed by AIG and others are entirely unreasonable. The reason is this -- the net growth of the reef can only be as fast as the net subsidence of the seamount or platform on which it is growing. This is a limiting factor. Thus, even if a reef could grow at, say, 3cm per year rather than around 1cm or less as virtually all of the empirical estimates show, the reef can still only grow to the surface of the water. Where rates of subsidence of seamounts can be measured, it is only a few mm per year. Subsidence rates have been estimated with high precision for the Hawaiian Islands, which are similar in most respects to the submerged seamount atop which the Eniwetok atoll rests. These islands are subsiding at only a few mm per year."
But there is also the possibility, since the depth of "one reef" is verified by drill cores, that lots of coral substance was washed there during the flood.
"Carbon dating of drowned reefs on the side of Hawaii show that it has subsided at this slow rate for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, its a little more interesting than that. You can actually predict the radiometric ages of a drowned coral reef, with considerable accuracy, simply by dividing the depth in mm by the observed subsidence rates in mm per year. ... Radiometric ages of Hawaiian corals compared to ages predicted by extrapolating observed subsidence rate of 2.7mm per year. Judging by the close correlation between predicted age and actual age, the rate of subsidence for the island of Hawaii has remained very close to 2.7mm per year throughout at least the last half-million years."
Carbon dates can definitely be off by orders of magnitude due to rising C14 levels, so are no proof. The other methods used are, especially K-Ar, worthless.
While talking about carbon dates, here is my to yesterday latest work on these:
Creation vs. Evolution : If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/02/if-gobekli-tepe-is-tower-of-babel.html
The reason for title is that I am using archaeological abandonment of Göbekli Tepe and its carbon date along with Biblical date (one version, as explained) of Dispersion of Tongues and Nations. I get 2733 BC as having had 49.279 % of modern carbon in atmosphhere back then, giving 5850 years over and above real age, adding up to 8583 BC - and 8600 BC is the archaeological date for when Babel was abandoned. Or when Göbekli Tepe was abandoned. Sorry, lack of sleep.http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/p/apologetics-section.html
Thanks, Sparko, for telling how I add the link here!
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostThe other methods used are, especially K-Ar, worthless.
I'm not interested in arguing the point, but it just amazes me of the pathology that allows people to build up an alternative reality that is so thoroughly entrenched that they can make statements like that with such utter confidence."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by hansgeorg View PostI was thinking in terms of fossil only reefs, separated by sediment. It is about for instance Bonaparte Basin, where an Elasmosaur was found above a Trilobite separated by a coral reef which cannot have all grown in the flood and therefore argues time between fossilisation events.
[Edit : supposedly, and if grown in situ].
In general, a valid scientific theory must plausibly explain all or certainly the vast majority of the data. When talking about the age of the earth, you can't ignore a specific data set that implies 200,000 years+ in favor of one that maybe can fit in your 6,000 year timeframe. The corals Kirk describes show characteristics that are impossible to explain in a flood scenario. If you want to say the lower structures which are CORAL 'accidentally just sort of look like coral' then you undermine ALL intelligent design arguments from probability. And in reality you are proposing the impossible as an explanation. They could be faked by an 'appearance of age' argument, but they did not form as the result of a giant flood. You either must show that 4610 feet of coral can grow in less than 6,000 years or accept that this formation and others that imply even greater age are in direct conflict with the hypothesis the Earth is <6,000 years old, which them implication that hypothesis fails.
Going to their site:
Subsidence means the amount of nourishment the coral gets, right? Check algal bloom, diversify to apply to reef growth ... perhaps the reef between Trilobite and Elasmosaur did grown in site after all, if flood conditions allowed reefs to grow unusually fast.
But there is also the possibility, since the depth of "one reef" is verified by drill cores, that lots of coral substance was washed there during the flood.
While coral reefs can give carbon dates, carbon dates cannot give "at least the last half-million years".
Carbon dates can definitely be off by orders of magnitude due to rising C14 levels, so are no proof. The other methods used are, especially K-Ar, worthless.
Speaking of which - you should look down the page one article at the subheading
Tidal Slowdown, Coral Growth, and the Age of the Earth
Here is a real bombshell for you. Three different factors: radiometric dating, tidal friction slowing the Earth's rotation, and coral growth rates and rings all come together to mutually confirm each other. In a nutshell, we know how much tidal influence slows the Earth. So we can calculate have much shorter a day would have been 300 million years ago from today. We also have fossil corals in formations that we know the radiometric dates for, and we know how to determine not merely daily growth patterns from the corals, but also yealy patterns.
Bottom line, the number of days per year recorded in the corals in layers radiometrically dated to be several hundred million years old matches closely the calculated number of days we would expect based on the known rate at which the Earth is slowing due to tidal friction. And not just for one set - two different sets, one in the devonian, one in the pennsylvanian, separated by more than 100 million years. They both show the correct number of days per year.
And the reality is, this kind of correlation is not unique. The green river varves show correlations to astronomical cycles of precession that vary from the solar cycle of 12 years to the full on precessional cycles of 23,000 and 100,000 years.
Which brings me to a motto I adopted several years ago in this debate. No matter how smart a scientist is that advocates a preferred view of the data but which ultimately is not REAL, the fact is the what is real will be supported by the data at all levels, and from all directions, and from all disciplines. IF something is real in history, then all the markers that should be left behind WILL be left behind. And no matter how smart the scientist, a contrived hypothesis will always yield at some point to what is REAL in the data, because no human is smart enough to consider ALL the potential possibilties. If we just follow the data where it leads, then as we learn more, as we gather more data, our conclusions will tend to self-correct to conformance with what was REAL in history, because when you have so many disperate types of data and records, generally there can be only one plausible explanation for it all. And that expanation will tend towards what actually happened.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 02-14-2017, 10:45 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Comment