Evolutionists do not understand OOL

[Roy]

You'll find lots of material on ICR, CMI, True.Origins and AiG. Certainly
enough to keep you out of my hair for a month or two.

According to the ICR, Barringer crater is a meteor crater:

"The best known crater is the Barringer Meteorite Crater in Arizona. Its sharp edges have not been significantly eroded, indicating that the meteor probably struck ground during post-Flood times."

But that's not what Jorge says:

"I hypothesize that in Genesis 7:11 - when "the fountains of the great deep" were broken up - there were a series of geologic events not unlike volcanic eruptions (recall the maars craters) except that they were significantly more energetic."

Jorge's own recommended sources reject his idiocy.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

Stop asking me / others to do your homework for you, Santa "Lazy" Klaus.

You'll find lots of material on ICR, CMI, True.Origins and AiG. Certainly
enough to keep you out of my hair for a month or two.

Enjoy!

Jorge

On Crater formation on the moon? I don't think so Jorge. That one's a problem. They don't talk about things that are significant problems with YEC. feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.


Jim

[Jorge]

~Burp~!!!

Now about those lunar, martian, and Mimas craters....

K54

Falling off the Sobriety Wagon does not grant you a free ride on the Integrity Wagon.

I've already responded to that. I provided multiple sources:
ICR, AiG, CMI and True.Origins -- just as starters. Remember???

The next step is for YOU to get off your lazy butt and do some homework.
Nope ... don't bother to ask -- I will NOT be doing the work for you.

Ta-ta. Oh, and, lay off the hard stuff!

Jorge

[Jorge]

On Crater formation on the moon? I don't think so Jorge. That one's a problem. They don't talk about things that are significant problems with YEC. feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

Jim

That would be easy but why would I bother - I'm already quite familiar with your strategy. Watch and be sure to nod your head in agreement: you toss out a challenge -- a sort of "hoop" for Biblical Creationists to jump through. When the challenge is met you immediately - without blinking or skipping a beat - whip out another challenge (another "hoop") and say, "Okay, now let's see how you do with this!"

Like I said, your unethical M.O. is out in the open. Perhaps if you come up with something novel - something that I'm not looking for - you may once again catch me off guard. But not with this worn-out strategy. Try harder, O-Mudd.

Jorge

[Jorge]

According to the ICR, Barringer crater is a meteor crater:

"The best known crater is the Barringer Meteorite Crater in Arizona. Its sharp edges have not been significantly eroded, indicating that the meteor probably struck ground during post-Flood times."

But that's not what Jorge says:

"I hypothesize that in Genesis 7:11 - when "the fountains of the great deep" were broken up - there were a series of geologic events not unlike volcanic eruptions (recall the maars craters) except that they were significantly more energetic."

Jorge's own recommended sources reject his idiocy.

Roy

Hey, M-O-R-O-N, what I hypothesize may explain some craters but not necessarily the Barringer Crater. You may correct me if I explicitly said, "The Barringer Crater was formed like this ...".
Of course, you can't do that because I didn't.

Parents, be sure to keep your kids far away from wherever R-R-Roy attended.

Jorge

[rwatts]

Hey, M-O-R-O-N, what I hypothesize may explain some craters but not necessarily the Barringer Crater. You may correct me if I explicitly said, "The Barringer Crater was formed like this ...".
Of course, you can't do that because I didn't.

Parents, be sure to keep your kids far away from wherever R-R-Roy attended.

Jorge

Jorge, that article was a great laugh. Thank you for it.

[oxmixmudd]

That would be easy but why would I bother - I'm already quite familiar with your strategy. Watch and be sure to nod your head in agreement: you toss out a challenge -- a sort of "hoop" for Biblical Creationists to jump through. When the challenge is met you immediately - without blinking or skipping a beat - whip out another challenge (another "hoop") and say, "Okay, now let's see how you do with this!"

Like I said, your unethical M.O. is out in the open. Perhaps if you come up with something novel - something that I'm not looking for - you may once again catch me off guard. But not with this worn-out strategy. Try harder, O-Mudd.

Jorge

You are projecting and/or hallucinating Jorge. I don't sit around and try to think of questions I can ask which I can then dodge.

The issue of the cause and effect of meteor impacts on the Earth or the Moon is one which you acknowledge as being a legitimate challenge to YEC. At that time, there existed NO response to that issue from the YEC side. YOU set out to create one, and after a time, you produced a paper that purported to offer a useful explanation from withing the YEC paradigm. That 'explanation' still exists:

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

You created it after consultation with several 'big whigs' in the YEC 'think tank'. However, it does not exist on any of the mainline sites - and for good reason. It doesn't work. It is not a plausible explanation, and it does not solve ANY of the potential consequences of events producing enough energy to create the large impact craters. I know of NO explanation beyond your own from the YEC side.

And I am fairly sure I know why one does not exist. Folks like those you consulted with KNOW that even their followers would balk at what you have proposed as being plausible, so they let you take the heat for it. Now it is up on a site they can point at from a sideways position, but not have to worry about any potential fallout over its lack of explanatory power.


But that only brings us back to my original comment. Show me where there are YEC explanations for the PROBLEMS posed by meteoroid/asteroid impacts. In specific:

How do they get formed in the last 6,000 years without simultaneously wiping out all of humanity (and 95-99% of everything alive)?
How do they get formed in the last 6,000 years and then subsequently eroded and twisted to their current condition?
How do they get BURIED in thousands of feet of sediment?
How do the also CUT THROUGH thousands of feet of sediment to bedrock?
How does the heat required to create the various kinds of molten ejecta get created?
How does this ejecta and crater structure match up that which would be produced by an incoming tangential trajectory?
How dd the moon get SO MANY impacts (hundreds of thousands) while only 250,000 miles away the Earth received <1000?
How did the Earth avoid bombardment from the ejecta from the large lunar impacts?


These are only a few problems for YEC posed by extra-terrestrial impacts. And there is NO explanation for the impact structures that exist in the solar system and Earth/Moon system that can account for them AND recorded human history over a 6,000-10,000 year period of time.

The YEC timeframe is simply proven false by these structures and their necessary history.


Jim

[Roy]

Hey, M-O-R-O-N, what I hypothesize may explain some craters but not necessarily the Barringer Crater. You may correct me if I explicitly said, "The Barringer Crater was formed like this ...".
Of course, you can't do that because I didn't.

Yes you did. Or, at least, you said the Barringer crater might have formed like this...

You used the Barringer crater as an example of a crater, and then you wrote this: "If the breaking of the fountains of the great deep involved maars-like explosions (only much more energetic) then that could explain the geologic features of what today are interpreted as 'impact craters'." and this: "I then presented a hypothetical scenario (related to the fountains of the great deep in Genesis 7:11) that could explain what today are interpreted as impact craters."

There's nothing in either of those statements to suggest you were only talking about some of the impact craters, and not even a hint of a suggestion that your stupid theory might not actually apply to the example you provided.

Since the Barringer crater is not only today interpreted as an impact crater, but was even one of the examples you used, you did explicitly associate your hypothesis with it.

Stop trying to bluff your way out of your incompetence and grow some cojones.

Roy

[Jorge]

Jorge, that article was a great laugh. Thank you for it.

Sure thing, no problem ... glad you 'enjoyed' it.

Your post reminded me of a story with two kids laughing hysterically as they
flipped through the pages of a book on Advanced Calculus. When asked why
they were laughing they said, "Look at all the funny squiggly lines, they're hilarious!"

Yeah, you definitely reminded me of those two kids, Roland.

[P.S. your 'pals' here on TWeb also often have that effect on me.]

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes you did. Or, at least, you said the Barringer crater might have formed like this...

You used the Barringer crater as an example of a crater, and then you wrote this: "If the breaking of the fountains of the great deep involved maars-like explosions (only much more energetic) then that could explain the geologic features of what today are interpreted as 'impact craters'." and this: "I then presented a hypothetical scenario (related to the fountains of the great deep in Genesis 7:11) that could explain what today are interpreted as impact craters."

There's nothing in either of those statements to suggest you were only talking about some of the impact craters, and not even a hint of a suggestion that your stupid theory might not actually apply to the example you provided.

Since the Barringer crater is not only today interpreted as an impact crater, but was even one of the examples you used, you did explicitly associate your hypothesis with it.

Stop trying to bluff your way out of your incompetence and grow some cojones.

Roy

Jorge

[Jorge]

You are projecting and/or hallucinating Jorge. I don't sit around and try to think of questions I can ask which I can then dodge.

Neither "projecting" nor "hallucinating" - though I'm quite sure that you'd like others to believe that. You seem to conveniently forget that I've been addressing your posts for many years (10 or more? I've lost count). You see, I've got your M.O. pegged to a 'T', O-Mudd. How you must HATE that!!!

The rest of your post is, as a consequence, tossed into the ol' round file.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Neither "projecting" nor "hallucinating" - though I'm quite sure that you'd like others to believe that. You seem to conveniently forget that I've been addressing your posts for many years (10 or more? I've lost count). You see, I've got your M.O. pegged to a 'T', O-Mudd. How you must HATE that!!!

The rest of your post is, as a consequence, tossed into the ol' round file.

Jorge

Sorry Jorge. What you call 'addressing my posts' over those ten years can be summed up in this simple exchange. I bring up actual data, ask you to address it, and you respond with some inane one liner and ignore, even cut from your response, the substance from which you inevitably run. I repost the substance of my post for those that might have caught only your typical and simpleminded reply:

Source: majority of the post cut by Jorge due most likely to his inability to face his own mistakes and the data itself

The issue of the cause and effect of meteor impacts on the Earth or the Moon is one which you acknowledge as being a legitimate challenge to YEC. At that time, there existed NO response to that issue from the YEC side. YOU set out to create one, and after a time, you produced a paper that purported to offer a useful explanation from withing the YEC paradigm. That 'explanation' still exists:

http://www.trueorigin.org/acbc_impact_craters.asp

You created it after consultation with several 'big whigs' in the YEC 'think tank'. However, it does not exist on any of the mainline sites - and for good reason. It doesn't work. It is not a plausible explanation, and it does not solve ANY of the potential consequences of events producing enough energy to create the large impact craters. I know of NO explanation beyond your own from the YEC side.

And I am fairly sure I know why one does not exist. Folks like those you consulted with KNOW that even their followers would balk at what you have proposed as being plausible, so they let you take the heat for it. Now it is up on a site they can point at from a sideways position, but not have to worry about any potential fallout over its lack of explanatory power.


But that only brings us back to my original comment. Show me where there are YEC explanations for the PROBLEMS posed by meteoroid/asteroid impacts. In specific:

How do they get formed in the last 6,000 years without simultaneously wiping out all of humanity (and 95-99% of everything alive)?
How do they get formed in the last 6,000 years and then subsequently eroded and twisted to their current condition?
How do they get BURIED in thousands of feet of sediment?
How do the also CUT THROUGH thousands of feet of sediment to bedrock?
How does the heat required to create the various kinds of molten ejecta get created?
How does this ejecta and crater structure match up that which would be produced by an incoming tangential trajectory?
How dd the moon get SO MANY impacts (hundreds of thousands) while only 250,000 miles away the Earth received <1000?
How did the Earth avoid bombardment from the ejecta from the large lunar impacts?


These are only a few problems for YEC posed by extra-terrestrial impacts. And there is NO explanation for the impact structures that exist in the solar system and Earth/Moon system that can account for them AND recorded human history over a 6,000-10,000 year period of time.

The YEC timeframe is simply proven false by these structures and their necessary history.

© Copyright Original Source

Note that I am aware of your previous attempts. I post direct links to them, for all to see. And I ask questions from the data for which there are no YEC answers. You simply hurl insults and eliminate content. A magnificent summary of the ethical and intellectual differences between the two of us, and, for the most part, the entire scientific element of the YEC/ToE debate.



Jim

[phank]

Note that I am aware of your previous attempts. I post direct links to them, for all to see. And I ask questions from the data for which there are no YEC answers. You simply hurl insults and eliminate content. A magnificent summary of the ethical and intellectual differences between the two of us, and, for the most part, the entire scientific element of the YEC/ToE debate.

The atheist/believer debate runs along pretty much these same lines. Evidence matters or it does not. When evidence (or lack of evidence) is arrayed against the Believer, what can the Believer do but evade, deny, insult, and proclaim?

[oxmixmudd]

The atheist/believer debate runs along pretty much these same lines. Evidence matters or it does not. When evidence (or lack of evidence) is arrayed against the Believer, what can the Believer do but evade, deny, insult, and proclaim?

Belief in God is first and foremost a matter of faith. YEC, as it is proclaimed by Jorge and others, is not. I would never suggest that I can prove to you God exists, or that you are ignoring 'true science' when you doubt the existence of God. It is a completely different sort of debate Phank. God is not 'seen' through the eyes of science. If your BELIEF that the eyes of science are the ONLY way to know of God, then you will never see Him unless He Himself does an end run around your unbelief.

But the reality is, to go beyond "I have no proof of a God" == agnostic, you must decide to DISbelieve - a choice, not a conclusion derived from the 'evidence'.

I have no idea why you try to equate the two. Except it serves your need to rattle my chain


Jim

[rwatts]

Yeah, you definitely reminded me of those two kids, Roland.

[P.S. your 'pals' here on TWeb also often have that effect on me.]

Jorge

That's good Jorge.

My two posts on evolution (dinosaur/bird and denovo genes) remain open for you to critique, offering something better than the rants you gave, in both cases.

I'm about to start another one on gene regulation and its contribution to evolution. That turns out to be fascinating, and I think I'm beginning to understand it somewhat.

Hence my next essay.

So see if you can offer something better than a rant, and something better than the logic you displayed in your True.Origins article.