RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:59   

I came across this post on Premier Radio's discussion forum. A reply from a question, asking if the poster had any geology qualifications:

 
Quote
i have studied geology and my daughter has a masters degree in geology and currently doing a PhD in it we have both talked and i have read some of the books and modules.
matthew i wasnt interested in ages of rocks at all! i think the structures are very interesting and fascinating.and when you look at metamorphic rocks its fascinating when you think of them being remelted and flowing like toffee.
i never thought about faith and geology i suppose i just junk the bits that are opposed to Bible content.i felt sickened though when it came to the evolution parts and could not continue it seemed completely wrong and bad. i could not even do the coursework assignments. how strange now i think about it.


and further:

   
Quote
i also rejected the idea of evolution while a child and abandonded doing a degree because i was so unhappy with the evolution module.


I'm not sure if her daughter junked the "evolution parts" and still ended up with a masters. Is this possible ? I would have thought not since the evolution parts play quite an important part in the subject.

http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/forum....t234117

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,11:03   

There are people quite able to maintain logic walls between conflicting ideas. They tend to be conflict avoident in their social lives as well.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,12:56   

that's why it's fun to nail them to a position and flog them with it!

unless they are your cousins in which case the fun diminishes exponentially as a function of the number of times a year you see them at yer granmaws house.

had an interesting conversation, afloat, with a young earther recently.  riding over and through and between mississippian and pennsylvanian limestone bluffs, this person simply could not grasp the full import of her acknowledging the rocks as "sedimentary', i.e. that it made nonsense of her bible.  she was not a geologist but is smart enough to know better.  as gary alludes, the capacity to compartmentalize may well be the most powerful ability of the human species.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,18:27   

I don't know one could be a structural geologist or geophysicist without really needing evolutionary theory. Of course there is that whole age of the earth thing, but that is a separate issue.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,18:45   

I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
MichaelJ



Posts: 462
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,20:47   

I think that you could for almost any subject without compartmentalizing. You just need to remember by rote all of the stuff. I think that knowing how oil formed and why it is found is such and such a strata can certainly help, but a person could just as learn that oil is found in these conditions.

When I did mechanical engineering we had people who just remember the equations but wouldn't have the faintest idea on how to derive the equations which I think is a similar mindset.


What these people will never do is advance knowledge.

  
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2009,10:03   

I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,21:12   

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

Yes, I have an acquaintance who worked for an oil company for many years as a geologist.  He now holds a government position as he also had a degree in law--but his work still requires geological background.  He's YEC and has no problem.

He says it's really no big deal among his peers, because he could do the work.  It's mostly knowing the geology and not the debate about the origin or age when it comes to oil.

I guess origins has to do with the past and money has to do with the present! :D

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,21:24   

Quote (OWKtree @ Sep. 09 2009,10:03)
I suspect that a lot would have to do with what the major disconnects were between your religious beliefs and your education on the subject.

If you were a literalist about the earth's creation then I expect geology in general would be an issue.  "Deep time" is simply too important in the study of rocks, and especially sedimentary deposits.  And more so if you're in the oil industry where you are not only concerned in finding the deposits, but also how long it was buried and at what sort of tempetures.

If you're issue is more of the "I ain't descended from no monkey" mode then I expect you can be much more in synch with the age of the Earth and geology in general while keeping evolution and biology in a separate compartment so to speak.  

Or possibly accepting general evolutionary principles and simply holding homo sapiens as a special creation.

It seems like the major emphasis with my friend/ acquaintance (former) geologist was finding oil, not your personal interpretations.  He talks alot about the complexity of underground formations and the forminefera.  He had to know the equipment he used of course.  Seems like more of a technical job than all the debate.  Debate forums tend to have varying degrees of philosophical banter along with the operational science.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:39   

Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:09   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:16   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,20:09)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 29 2009,21:39)
 
Quote (ppb @ Sep. 08 2009,18:45)
I had a YEC brother-in-law who studied at the ICR under Steve Austin, then went on to get a Masters degree at Penn State in geology.  After college he went to work for one of the major oil companies in New Orleans.  He seemed able to do the necessary work without believing all the science.

That's because for YECs, money is more important than science. Isn't that obvious? If money could not be made from promoting Creationism, no one would do it.

What a prejudice statement.  That's like saying all evolutionists are liberal tree hugging socialists.

I thought this was a science forum!


Well, you could offer some science to discuss instead of Creationism.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,22:36   

Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion.  So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.  

Where are the searchers for truth.  All I see is  a bunch of closed minded vultures swooning in the thought of a potential kill. You'll not find me so green and tender.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,22:52   

I came on here and offered personal experience of knowing a geologist, in response to someone stating that there b-in-law was YEC for an oil company, so that's why I said what I said.  But if you think for one minute that I'll waste my time being insulted or that I'll overlook your inferences--then your wrong.  There are other debate sites.

I read one post where the person was whining how no YEC had come along who knew anything.  Well I do know a bit--not just the Bible--but why should I debate people who want to express their disdain towards YECs on me?  i don't have time for that!!!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,23:00   

hey scienthuse you seem to be a friendly chap.  i hope ya stick around

i don't know anything about lead isotopes etc etc etc.  there are entire libraries full of things that i don't know.  

but i do know enough about the distribution of plants and animals to know that the bible story about the flood never happened.

but i sure hope you get this thing about lead off of your chest (i hear it's heavy, for one thing).  i know there are folks around here that know much more about that sort of thing than the rest of us.  i wanna hear what you have to say.

if you have paid any attention to the antics of Floyd Lee perhaps you will understand why "innocent until proven guilty" is a difficult standard to live up to?  we've had some doozies drop by over the years, and some have stuck around (see that fellow Chatfield over there in the corner, wearing the latex penguin suit, shhh he's looking, anyway, just don't ask him why he's wearing a postit note mustachioe)

don't run off now, heeah?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,23:09   

Quote
So far I have heard alot of sarcasm and insults, making me wonder if this place is worth the headache.


Quote
by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.


So, how is "This is entirely presumptive on your part" not sarcasm and insult?

Henry

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,04:26   

I was being rather blunt and reactionary as a result of other posts and the comment made earlier that YECs are just about money.  I'm not here to make trouble--but I would ask that we be civil. Just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to get sarcastic.

What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,04:34   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,05:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 01 2009,04:34)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

Are *any* radiometric dating methods, in your opinion, reliable then?

Given the questions I posed I don't see how they could be.  If there were no doubts raised and there was a method that was as good as empirical, I would be forced to be an old earth creationist.

This is the entire problem with being dogmatic on many points in origins--it is historical science, and not completely empirical.

  
faded_Glory



Posts: 1
Joined: April 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,06:20   

First of all, hello, I'm a long time lurker here. I've contributed to other boards in the past, such as ARN, IIDB and even have a couple of posts on UncommonDescent, but I have never posted here before.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I have an Msc in geology and have worked for nearly 30 years in the oil industry. Here are some of my thoughts on the OP.

As narrow and specialised it may appear to outsiders, geology is actually quite a broad discipline that covers a wide field of natural phenomena and meshes with numerous other sciences, such as physics, chemistry, astronomy and of course biology. There are actually specialisms in geology that don't relate much to the age of the earth and the geological time scale, and I think it would be possible to be for instance a geochemist or geophysicist and strictly stick to the chemical and physical aspects of rocks and their development without worrying about evolution etc. at all. There are many questions worth investigating in those fields that are time-independent to a large degree.

However, the lingo and thinking of geology as a whole is permeated by the concept of deep time, and it would be very hard indeed to converse with peers without at least silently going along with the default position of an old earth and processes playing out over millions of years. The science of geology has over its lifetime of several hundreds of years managed to construct an amazing narrative of the planet's history, on scales ranging from the epic billion-year time line, to highly detailed fine-grained models of microscale processes. This narrative is the paradigm in which we work, the canvas on which we paint, the reality that makes sense of our observations and theories. For a professional like myself working with sedimentary rocks and models of their evolution over time, it is virtually unthinkable to have to cram all observations and thinking into a mere 6000 year window - almost nothing would make sense anymore. We would have lost the paradigm that allows us to place individual observations in a wider context, apply our familiar and well understood processes and ultimately make useful predictions.

I have had conversations with someone who claimed to be a YEC and take decisions on where to drill oil wells. It turned out that all he did was following existing trends without worrying too much about why the trend was there in the first place. This may work, sometimes and within limits, in established production areas but he would be incapable of proposing an exploration campaign in a new area justified by a sound, holistic model of the petroleum potential. I have never come across an oil or gas company that would accept investment proposals without the technical staff being able to present such a comprehensive view based on the accepted tenets of modern geological science.

Bottom line - in certain highly specialist and technical specialisms of geology one might get away with it, but nowhere else without completely losing one's professional foothold.

fG

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,08:25   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

I'm not a geologist, but I do know that with radiometric dating they try to use multiple methods whenever possible to verify their data.  If they get consistent results from two different methods it is hard to see how the contamination would also be consistent.  You shouldn't presume that the experts in the field don't consider such questions.  They do.

As far as my YEC brother-in-law, he was married to the sister of my ex-wife, and I haven't kept close touch with him.  I do know he is no longer working for the oil company, but I'm not sure if he is still using his geology degree.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,09:37   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,02:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

No one knows how much of either the parent or daughter element was there to start with, or how much parent/daughter element have come in/left the rock through ground water.

Actually, I am always surprised when a YEC assumes that we have not already grappled with, and resolved the problems regarding radiometric dates they find so difficult.  Their false satisfaction relies on two assumptions; we scientists are dumb, and that their misinterpretation of the Bible is itself infallible.

But don't take my word for anything. I am tired of explaining this to creationists.

Here is an article on radiometric dating written by a Christian for other Christians hosted on a Christian website: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2009,07:37

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,10:31   

I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,10:40   

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 01 2009,08:31)
I also believe from my limited layman reading on the subject, plus the osmosis of concepts and data I pick up from my brother (A geosciences professor in the New York SUNY system) that radiometric measurments are simply one arrow in the quiver used by the geology establishment in their determination that the Earth is old.  So even if a flaw was found in one, or more, of the radiometric methods there are other avenues of evidence pointing to concept of deep time being correct.

The ediface does not hang by a single strand, but is connected to a web of supporting evidence that often reinforces each other.  Plate tectonics, stratifigraphy, indicator fossils, etc.

Exactly. The popularity of young earth arguments is always proportional to the obscurity of the argument. Most people know little to nothing about isotope measurement, or geochemistry. But, if they read some YEC website they can pick-up some terminology which they can toss around as if they understand it.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,11:01   

so it might help if scienthuse is going to address a specific claim, rather than "radiometric dating" in general.

perhaps he is not green and tender.    who knows, who cares.

if there are particulars to address then it's easy to focus on the topic.  otherwise, we have a vast repository of experience and observation from which to make hasty generalizations.  

i hold that it may, indeed, be possible to be intellectually honest and remain a YEC.  but i have not observed such a beast, yet.

but i'd rather not focus on my opinion, but on what it is exactly that Scienthuse is claiming that refutes radiometric dating estimates of the age of the earth.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,11:50   

When I worked as an exploration geologist in the 70s and 80s, we never had these discussions.  I just assumed all my peers believed in deep time and evolution just as I do, but now I'm curious.

Of course where we were working makes it hard to be a YEC.  I can't see 50000 feet of Stanley shale being deposited, lithified and then overthrust more than 100 miles in less than 5000 years without someone noticing.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,12:25   

Deep time is also an integral part of astronomy.  Because light has a fixed, measurable speed, we know that the further out in the universe we look, the further back in time we are seeing.  Just to see across our own galaxy is looking back 100,000 years.  The universe itself is billions of lightyears in size.  We can look back and see the history of the entire universe, almost to the Big Bang itself.
 
Astronomy is another science that corroborates deep time and shows a literal reading of Genesis to be indefensible.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,12:52   

There's also SN1987a, which allows measurement of interstellar distance by trigonometry, independent of the speed of light.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
khan



Posts: 1525
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:05   

And all these many methods agree: conspiracy!

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:14   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,23:36)
Or perhaps we might talk a bit about your  presumptive philosophy which thinks it lays claim to all operational science, by assuming that all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain.  This is entirely presumptive on your part.  And you ignore at the same time the helium inside, which most of it should have long dissipated if the earth is 4.6 billion

Looks as if you don't know much about radiometric dating.

No real geologist presumes that all the 206Pb that we see is the result of the decay of 238U, at least after the solar system formed. Lead in troilite in the Canyon Diablo meteorite is thought to contain the primordial proportion of lead isotopes (and is thought to be so for good reason). The isotope relevant isotope ratios for this material are:

206Pb/204Pb 207Pb/204Pb 208Pb/204Pb 238U/204Pb
9.46 10.34 29.44 0.025

(Patterson, C., H. Brown, G. Tilton, and M. Inghram, 1953, Phys. Rev., v. 92, p. 1234; and Patterson, C., 1955, Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 7, p. 151.)

I'm sure you can see the significance of these ratios, being such an expert and all that.

There are actually quite a few studies of dating using helium daughter product, starting with the first radiometric date by Rutherford in 1905. For example, http://www.geotrack.com.au/uthhe/u-th-he-flier.htm, http://bgc.org/facilities/u_th_he_lab.html, and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;196/4287/291.

I suppose that by "you ignore at the same time the helium inside" you are referring to the RATE group's study of zircons. That's been extensively discussed. My conclusion is that they may possibly have found an interesting anomaly, but they are far from having enough data to establish the validity of their methods and claims. They need to study a much wider variety of zircons, especially some with a simpler thermal history and no possible exposure to helium compared to the few zircon studies they published. They also need to justify their large extrapolations of diffusion data.

Since they have not published anything on this subject since 2004, and there's not even a hint of any further work going on, it looks to me as if they gathered enough data to provide a sciency-sounding reference for the sheeple and don't intend to go any further.

If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:30   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,04:26)
By presuming, I meant the modern interpretation of science is presumptive in radiometric dating.  How can anyone assume the ratio between any isotopes/ elements in a given igneous rock is there solely because of nuclear decay?

Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.

FYI, there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis. There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. U-Pb concordia-discordia dating is by far the most widely used dating technique, and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:

 
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth — at today’s rates — of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.


(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf. Emphasis in original.)

There are also many methods that indicate when the system has not been closed. Not all of them indicate how much relevant material has been lost or gained; but many of them, including the Ar-Ar method and the aforementioned and widely used U-Pb concordia-discordia method, often produce a valid age even when the system has been opened.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is a good resource for learning the basics and some of the subtleties. I heartily recommend it to you if yuo hope to discuss the subject.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,13:35   

I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).

In other words, Last Thursdayism.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,14:09   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2009,14:35)
I suppose it's been mentioned that the only way the RATE project found to rescue a young earth interpretation was to assume variable rates of decay (without any of the annoying side effects caused by the energy released).

Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.

Personally, since they seem to be presuming multiple miracles to implement their accelerated decay, they didn't just tell God to majick away the heat and radiation, and fake the starlight. What's a few more miracles among friends?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,19:51   

First, I don't think any scientist is stupid or dumb, just because I don't accept an old earth or believe evolution.  They are more highly educated than myself.  However there are credentialed scientists--not just Austin--who would and could disagree with you much better than I.

I am aware of potassium/argon, strontium/rhubidium, the Uranium 238/lead 206 decay process, and I believe there are a couple of newer radioisotope methods that they use to date rocks.  

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??  

If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.

The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. Argon in lava dome

I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:08   

You think Austin is a reliable source?

Then explain why he deliberately sent the wrong sorts of rocks to the laboratories specifically in order to get inaccurate readings.  If Austin is correct about his claims, then why did he have to resort to using underhanded methods to support himself?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:53   

I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed here twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.

As for "other experts" that agree with the likes of Austin , you may want to read John Baumgardner attempting to respond to criticisms of his claims during a Theology Web discussion. Eventually, Baumgardner is reduced to inane "threats" like :
Quote
" they face a judgment before a terrible Judge who will not look upon their mockings and blasphemies lightly [on p.10 of the "discussion"]

Merely because people disagreed wth Baumgardner and spelled out his errors, Baumgardner chose to issue statements like that and then cut and run. Rather than address the scientific questions.

P.S. Have fun, Jon! Bwahaha.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,20:59   

Ya know, your unthinkingly repetition of creofraud lies is really boring. Don't you guys ever think?

 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,20:51)

My statement about lead 206 presumption is simply an attention getter.  I don't actually believe scientists think that all lead 206 is from decay--but why then do they treat all dated rocks as such??

They don't. Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.

 
Quote
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon  then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?

Yes. Using Ar-Ar.

 
Quote
 Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?

Doesn't matter.

 
Quote
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.

 
Quote
AND I'm fully aware that argon is supposed to dissipate when rock is molten. This is questioned by RATE in the dating of the lava dome at ST HELENS.

That was long before RATE.

 
Quote
The assumption that argon should not be in molten lava is put in doubt by this data. Argon in lava dome

But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.

Like the RATE group tested so many different zircons form different sits . Oh, wait ...

 
Quote
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,21:24   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30)
Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.

Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
           
Quote
JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis.
 
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this.  Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  

Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three.  Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place.  Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
       
Quote
JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.

And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens.  That's not supposed to be there.  What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?  
       
Quote
JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:

Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock.  So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do.  Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.

"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)

Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,21:40   

Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:16   

JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:21   

Quote
If you date a rock, by obtaining the ratio of potassium to argon then you are assuming that all the argon is a result of nuclear decay. However is there anyone here who could prove how much argon was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much potassium was in the rock to begin with?  Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?


Um, the isochron method was developed to address that problem

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:28   

Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:29   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,23:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

oh henry, gods can do anything

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:32   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"talk  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.

 
Quote
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,21:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.

This is from talkorigins:"Helium is a very light atom...When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements"talk  
"radioactive elements" would be radioactive decay--particularly uranium decay.  It produces helium.
You fail refuse to realize that helium can not traverse substances like rubber, ceramic, metal, or the rocks that they are trapped in.  If helium escapes from the radioactive rocks that form them as soon as they are formed, then how would anyone expect to know that they are formed from radioactive decay in the first place?

If helium atoms are so small that they can pass through any substance, how come we have helium-filled balloons (not to mention the tanks of helium that are used to fill them in the first place)?  I mean, are you that stupid to assume that I'm that stupid to not know what helium-filled balloons are filled with?

That, and if all the helium that's produced on Earth automatically escapes into the atmosphere upon creation, then how come we have a relatively burgeoning helium gas industry?

Quote
Quote
And why would we expect your arguments to get better when you insist on repeating lies and distortions from known liars?

Common debate technique on this forum in particular--slander.  Its easy to accuse someone you don't know.  It's called hearsay.

I'm slandering: I'm stating the obvious.  So, explain to me why I should not point out that Austin isn't a liar if he had to resort to blatant manipulation to support his claims, and explain to me why I should not call you a liar because you not only insist on claiming that Austin is a reliable source, but resort to distortion, and repeating Creationist lies?

I mean, if anything, according to your moronic attempt at snarky smarminess with your comments about helium, I would suspect that you're not only extraordinarily dishonest, but rather dim and an incompetent judge of intelligence, too.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,22:47   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,03:51   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:47)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 01 2009,22:28)
Quote
What does the dispersion of plants and animals have to do with the impossibility of a worldwide deluge?

Such a deluge would have killed the vast majority of the species previously alive, and left the survivors with a severe genetic bottleneck (i.e., very little variety would be left in the surviving species). Both of these situations are contrary to what is in the world today.

Henry

Not to mention that biogeography would point to all terrestrial life originating from Mount Ararat.  Of course, creationists routinely [fail to bother to explain why biogeography actually does not suggest that all terrestrial life originated from Mount Ararat.

When I have more time--I heard bottlenecks.  Been a while since I debated that one, but I got something for you.  Remember it's like 5 against one here.  You'll have to be patient--sorry.  Gotta busy life too.  Off to work.

  
snorkild



Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,06:09   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.


From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.

--------------
wimp

  
1of63



Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,06:38   

Quote (snorkild @ Oct. 02 2009,06:09)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:32)
Nonporous to you Stanton--you are not a helium atom.  Helium is so small it will dissipate into the atmosphere.


From Wikipedia's entry on Helium:

"[H]elium is trapped in a similar way by non-permeable layer of rock like natural gas the greatest concentrations on the planet are found in natural gas, from which most commercial helium is derived."

Just because some helium escapes to the atmosphere doesn't mean nothing is retained in minerals.

To put it even more simply, in terms even IDiots can understand.

We are made up of atoms like everything else.  Atoms are mostly empty space

So how come my hand doesn't just slide through this keyboard?

D'uh?

--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,07:50   

yah but have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:13   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,22:24)
 
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 01 2009,13:30)
Oh boy, you're just another ignorant creo. No fun at all.

Don't worry it'll get better--but be patient.
             
Quote
JonF...there are radiometric dating methods which produce the original parent/daughter ratio as a side effect of the dating analysis.
 
Can you elaborate? I would hesitate to seriously believe this.  Just like isochron dating, which attempts to remove assumption by making a distinction between the parent, the daughter (radiogenic) and the daughter (non-radiogenic) which in plain English means they (admittedly--they have to) assume that at crystallization there was originally the parent, the daughter element which was not a product of decay, and some daughter that was a product of decay. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  

Now you've not only got two original unknowns but three.  Perhaps there was no radiogenic daughter in the first place.  Just because you can do equations does not give you a true answer if you don't have the correct original variables.
         
Quote
JonF...There are also lots of methods based on the physical impossibility of there being any significant amount of daughter product present when the sample formed, such as U-Th disequilibrium dating and U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.

And there is argon in the lava dome at St Helens.  That's not supposed to be there.  What are the so-called physical impossibilities and how are they proved?  
         
Quote
JonF...and those few creationists (the RATE group) who have some idea of how it works acknowledge the fact that essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:

Yes and they also acknowledge the huge amount of helium that is retained within--this simply should not be in an ancient rock.  So it is a stand-off--you have no more weight of argument than I do.  Thanks for leaving us the quote so I did not have to do a search.

"sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead."(Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003a, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.)

Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.

I can explain all that. (I've already briefly explained the Mt. St Helens results and the impossibility of significant initial lead in zircons, and listed some of the problems with the RATE helium-in-zircons results). I won't. I tire of explaining simple physics to ignoramuses in fora that are not designed for writing a textbook, when there are exquisitely written, researched, and illustrated essays free on the Internet for the price of one click. You claim you're not "green and tender". Well, you obviously are. Read the links I already provided, study them until you understand them, and then maybe you'll be qualified to offer an opinion on radiometric dating and discuss it. Unless and until you do that, you're just another green, tender, and ignorant creationist who's unquestionably swallowed the crap on creo websites and hasn't had a thought of your own.

A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?  

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:17   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

Yes. I'm arrogant. I've been following and studying and participating in discussions like this fort many a moon, and I've proved that my arrogance is justified.

Read the links, especially "Excess argon and excess lies".

Ponder the phrase "most commonly" in your Wikipedia article.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,08:31   

Quote (Stanton @ Oct. 01 2009,22:40)
Why would we except helium to escape from a type of rock that is nonporous?

Helium is a small molecule, and diffuses relatively easily through "solid" rock. We definitely do expect helium loss over geologic time.

But calculating how much should diffuse requires detailed knowledge of the thermal history of the rock and the difference in concentration between helium in the interior and the exterior of the rock over the time between formation and measurement, plus detailed knowledge of how helium diffuses in the relevant material at the temperatures and pressures the rock experienced. The few zircons that the RATE group measured come from a borehole in Fenton Hill, an area with a long and complex thermal history, and an area near which high concentrations of helium have been found (raising the possibility that helium may have actually diffused into the zircons). The model they used to calculate the expected diffusion requires extrapolating measurements made in vacuum to real-world conditions.

There are other problems with the "study", but in my mind those are the major ones. The only way to address them is to study far more zircons, from several places, with simpler thermal histories, and with no reasonable possibility of being in an area of high helium concentration, and couple this with further (perhaps long-term) diffusion studies.

Humphreys has "responded" to criticisms, and I'll bet Scienthuse has the link close by. I've got links too. But the only way to establish the validity of their claims and method is lots more and better data.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:15   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,23:16)
JonF,
Don't forget to read the previous post I wrote to you.  I won't fail to mention that you are rather arrogant.  Why don't you shut down the rhetoric and just stick to the facts.  Read this:

"Relative dating only

The 40Ar/39Ar method only measures relative dates. In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must determined by irradiating the unknown sample along with a sample of known age for a standard. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique.[1]"  Wikipedia

Do you see what this is saying?  They have to have a another sample of "known age"--and they are going to use a traditional K-Ar as the standard.  Well how do they know the age?  They know there can be argon in the rocks when they form--but they don't know how much.  But they use it as a standard for something that is supposed to remove assumption!!

"There's a problem with argon being in the lava guys--we aren't sure of the K-Ar.  Lets use Ar-Ar--it's more accurate and removes assumption--but we have to use a K-Ar sample as a standard because we know the age."

Is anyone getting dizzy?

Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:21   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 02 2009,09:15)
Why is it that the sum total of IDCers' interest in science manifests itself in strenuous attempts to throw doubt on the research and conclusions of science, and absolutely no interest is ever shown in performing any of their own research to support their own hypotheses (which as far as I've seen do not exist)?  Rhetorical question.

That's because the ultimate purpose of Intelligent Design is a convoluted plot to illegitimately obtain a veneer of scientific legitimacy for the Bible, so it can become and remain the science textbook, as well as the law and history textbook of the land, forever and ever, until Judgment Day.

You'd know that if you read the Wedge Document.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,09:57   

This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.



When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,11:41   

Ah, Fenton Hill. Valles Caldera, with lots of helium moving through fractures with a complex hydro-therm history. None of which the RATE group was capable of handling very well at all.

See, AFDave was good for some things. There's still a lot of the Fenton Hill posts here that could be used

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,11:58   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 01 2009,20:53)
I feel a bit slighted that you've taken the time to respond to Jon without addressing the questions I posed here twice already, Scienthuse. I'm sure you're a busy person and all, but responses of "yes," "no" or "I don't know" would have sufficed.

Again, just to remind you, Scienthuse.

Of course, you can also try to arrive at some conclusions regarding the Fenton Hill zircons (or apatite or titanite crystals, which show the same kind of permeability to helium moving in and out ). But RATE never followed up with their "studies" that were intended merely to have a talking point casting doubt on radiometrics.

What you'll find today is that geologists continued to do the work that the RATE group should have done and DID claim to want to do, but never does -- despite having lots of money available for other things.

I'd suggest you look at helium isotope ratios and what it means for the RATE claims, scienthuse...and how the RATE group never even bothered (to this day) to do a proper analysis of that in the Fenton Hill materials.

Hell, in the years since the RATE group, Ken Farley at Caltech has published more papers by himself on the subject(s) than the entire RATE group combined, and he has a tiny budget by comparison:  http://www.gps.caltech.edu/people/farley/publications

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,15:43   

Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,15:54   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

There WAS a discussion that Scienthuse seems to have abandoned, leaving me feeling all lonely and sad, so I came here to say hi!! Thanx for teh linkys!!!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:22   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2009,09:57)
This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.


When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.

I'm deluded?  And what do you do Louis besides believe heme can last 68 million years?  Think there was some rocks by that T-Rex bone? Because the C-14 was supposed to be gone with a half life of 5730 years. So they had to use rocks.  Bet they could have found some C-14 if they tried, since there was organic material still inside.

Yes Mr. Louis the C-14 question that you will undoubtedly gloss over as you relentlessly search for dishonesty, delusion, contradiction, and lack of knowledge.   Or maybe they didn't even date the leg since the geologic timescale could never be wrong.

Ms. Schweitzer--Get in line!

Louis, that article is the real "dead giveaway."  

Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:37   

If you wanted to discuss Darwin, Austin and the Santa Cruz...you had the ability to do so in a thread involving that, Scienthuse.

The problem is that even if I keep reminding you of the existence of that thread and the questions waiting there for you, you keep ignoring it.

Keep this thread for your claims on radiometrics and the other  for the Santa Cruz/Austin claims.

No need to try to keep introducing other irrelevant creationist claims about T-Rex heme at this point -- when you haven't actually responded to comments on radiometrics and Austin yet. Surely, you wouldn't want people to think you're merely running a  Gish Gallop, would you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:42   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,20:22)
Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30

2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,21:33   

I did the Schweitzer v creatocrap articles years ago.

Dino Blood and the Young Earth, and

Dino Blood Redux

I suppose a new article is due.

Shit, creationists are stupid.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,21:42   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

Yes you are right.  

1)The valley is  6 miles wide by 200 miles long.  Austin states that the "valley is much smaller than the present river system requires." It is 1/10 as wide.

2) It is full of "depositional features" --"large boulder ridges and bars" throughout.

3)The present river is moving sand and pebbles.  Yet there are cobbles and boulders sometimes to the top of the valley.

4) Austin states that some of the rocks are from the "core of the Andes Mountains 150 miles away. This would be a significant discovery if this could be confirmed by peer review.

4) Again Darwin recorded a 15 foot boulder somewhere in the valley.

Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,00:10   

My thoughts are that I find it funny that you seem to have a real aversion towards dealing with any of my posts at all, Scienthuse. Even when (and perhaps especially because) I was relatively civil and courteous.

I politely asked you a goodly number of times to address the points I'd made and you then deliberately avoid doing so. I find that revealing and amusing. If I were a cynical man (and I am towards yecreationists), why, I might think that you're looking for a martyr's exit, so you can pretend to have "won" something.  

Gallop on, though, right past this for the fifth or sixth time:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:42)

1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,00:29   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).  Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,05:39   

Scienthuse,

1) It's Dr Louis, thanks.

2) I'm well beyond being reeled in by trolls/fools. I'll let others waste their time with you. Your schtick is old, I've seen it before.

Whether or not other people think you are a troll is up to them. AtBC is not homogeneous, there are a variety of disagreements about a number of things. As far as I'm concerned you have all the hallmarks so far of a specific type of creationist/troll. Either that or despite your claim to not being "green" you've learned nothing in discussions with others.  Neither option inspires me to waste my time with you.

Now I'll admit, I could be very wrong about that. You could be some spectacularly lovely creationist, sincere in all his/her beliefs and genuinely interested in discussion. But leaping into any conversation/discussion/site and whining about tone, playing asinine games with "attention getters", making claims about "it'll get better later" like you've got some ace up your sleeve are dead giveaways. You are pulling the same creationist nonsense of old: attempt to knock down current science as if that will some how lend support to your creationist crapola, all the while flailing your hands and chucking as much irrelevant smoke around as possible to disguise the fact that you've got nothing.

Even if you do manage to knock some aspect of current science down, and let's be blunt you haven't a chance especially using standard creationist talking points that have been long refuted, what positive evidence have you presented in favour of your own claims? That's right, none.

Like I said, trying to play "gotcha", infantile attempts to gainsay others, rehashing the same drivel time after time, playing the martyr (undoubtedly next in your play book, you've already shown the beginnings), claims of "warring equal worldviews", and other such classic hallmarks of the creationist clown or troll, really fail to inspire dialogue.

If you, unlike most creationists in my experience, can get past your offence at the fact that reality doesn't agree with the bullshit chanted by the bunnies in your head you might be worth some effort.

3) Did I say anything about the geologic column, C-14 dating, T-Rex or anything else? No. Gish Gallop much? Do I want to waste my time in "discussion" with someone like you? No. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Touchy little troll ain'tcha?

4) Stay around as long as you like, I have neither the power to change your presence here, nor any interest in changing it. I seem to remember it was you who came stampeding in, swinging comments about tone around. If someone invited you, more fool you for accepting, chew toys are fun for a while but they rarely grab the attention for long. I doubt you have the capacity to break the endless cycle of dumb that surrounds discussions on this issue.

5) Creationism is not even wrong. In all its various strains and species (unless of course it gets watered down to the vague creative deism it usually does when confronted) it is at best a parody of science. It's an attempt to gull the gullible into believing a specific set of religious claims has some veneer of scientific credibility. It has always failed to date and will always continue to. You can misrepresent that as some scientific/atheist dogma if you wish, you'd be wrong, and wrong in ways I'd guess you can't even begin to understand.

I know you don't understand that but try to let the possibility percolate into your cranium, it will make for more interesting discussion. By the way, before you bother, science is provisional. The idea that a specific set of scientific ideas is potentially wrong is enshrined in the process from the get go. You are not dealing with an opposed dogma. Perhaps that is something you might attempt to understand.

6) Show me something new. I have little need or interest in rehashing GCSE chemistry every day of my life as if it were cutting edge, the same applies to creationist claims. Show me something new and interesting. Stop wasting my time with long refuted nonsense and bog standard misunderstandings of science.

7) And no, I'm not very nice. Denialists, antiscience woo peddlers, wind up merchants and the wilfully ignorant  and actively stupid bring out the intolerant prick in me. {Shrug} We all have our crosses to bear.

That's about all the time I'm willing to waste being nice. LOL

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,07:37   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,00:29)

My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

 Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?

I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
         
Quote
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....

Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       
Quote
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).


Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,07:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
 
I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
                     
Quote
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....

Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

                   
Quote
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).


Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

(1) I said Morris was a crank and Austin was wrong, Scienthuse. Try reading for accuracy.  Also, YOU haven't shown that Darwin was wrong at all. Nor has Austin, in ANY valid scientific way -- hint: propaganda videos are not acceptable substitutes for peer-reviewed papers, which Austin COULD have published, IF he had any valid evidence.

(2) Creationists don't peer-review their own papers, they check them for adherence to their Biblical presuppositions. Don't believe me? Try actually learning about the various topics written about in "creationist" papers and then we can discuss the myriad errors in each one. Oh, and if they DO peer-review them, why can't anyone find out about their peer-review processes and reviewers for the many, many papers that are shown to be wrong?  

(3) Uh, the Grand Canyon is not "composed of silicated clays." It has hundreds of meters of limestones, sandstones and conglomerates, none of which is termed clay. "Clay" has a meaning, scienthuse. You should be able to look it up in a dictionary of geological terms. You simply don't know what you're talking about.  You're also ignoring the gneiss and schist I mentioned in another post. Among MANY other things.

(4) Henry Morris claimed the Canyon was cut in one fell swoop in his "genesis flood" and HE said it was in SOFT, unconsolidated  materials...which not only would make  the hundreds of meters of verticals (wth billions of tons of overlying materials) impossible, IF it were laid in the manner and timespans  that Morris yaps stupidly about -- it also goes directly against basic physics of deposition -- like LIMESTONE (which precipitates agonizingly slowly) overlain by heavier materials like sandstones and conglomerates. In that brief span of Morris' "Genesis Flood", this is physically impossible.

You don't know what you are talking about in the least, scienthuse:

 
See anything there that says "clay strata?" No? How about you try to learn about the topics BEFORE arguing creationist talking points that are obviously false?

ETA: This is Redwall Limestone. Do you know how limestone is formed? How fast it's measured to precipitate on average? How it is dolomitized?




Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.

So, what do you think of all that, "Scienthuse?"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,09:22   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:22)
2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

I see you haven't figured out what "most commonly" means. Nor do you understand what is being calibrated by the known-age sample in Ar-Ar dating.

Just for grins, let's see what of mine you haven't addressed:

 
Quote
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.


 
Quote
...essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
 
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay.


 
Quote
Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.


 
Quote
Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.


 
Quote
     
Quote
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.


 
Quote
But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.


 
Quote
     
Quote
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.


 
Quote
 
Quote
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.

A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?


You got a lot to address before we get into 14C dating and we rip you a new one there too.  The Gish Gallop may go over big at the church socials, but nobody here is impressed.
Quote
If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

Yup, they'd just love you at one of those creo forums that doesn't allow dissent.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,09:28   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.

It's not surprising that he can't get the terminology correct, all he's got he picked up from creo websites. He's talking about the fact that in Ar-Ar dating the irradiation equipment is calibrated using a sample of known age, and this sample's age is often (but not always) known because it's been dated with K-Ar. This has him all a-twitter and somewhere in the cavernous and empty recesses of what we might call (for lack of a better term) his mind he seems to think that this has some impact on the validity of Ar-Ar dating. What trail of "logic" he followed to get this conclusion I don't know; I presume it's the ol' AfDDave "some = all" fallacy applied multiple times.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,10:13   

I think Scienthuse belongs in the Tonto Group.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,10:19   

LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,12:00   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

guys, I think we've got one dumber than FL or ray-ray.

"attacking the messenger is a cheap shell game ploy"  Attacking the messenger('s idiotic posts) is what this forum is about.  Go home if you don't want to play.

"That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas"  I suspect that if you paid his fee, Dawkins would be on the next plane. He would probably love to thump those thumpers.

Peer Review:  Poor IDiots.  they want to be accepted as true scientists, but only if we change the rules.WHIIIINNNNNNNE.

" I hike through a canyon . . ."

This is so funny in so many ways its just sad. I know most of you understand geology 101, but obviously someone needs a lesson. CLAY is a mineral found in many sedimentary rocks.  It is not a rock.  Is your rock shale, siltstone, sandstone? Enquiring minds want to know! If only gravity was it work, wouldn't all the material that has fallen off the walls still be there somewhere?  What force carried it away? You say canyon walls cannot overhang:  ever been in a slot canyon in Arizona or Utah?  Ever seen pictures of a slot canyon? Again geology 101:  limestone is not silicate based.

If you are the IDiots next great white intellect, the movement is definitely doomed.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,13:20   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 03 2009,12:00)

Clay is not a mineral: it is a kind of sediment formed from fine grains of various different minerals, very water-absorbent, and showing a huge range of plasticity (malleableness) depending on the moisture content.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,15:19   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:19)
LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis

Should "Scienthuse" continue along the same vein and keep avoiding answering the points directed at him, MY nickname for him is going to be much more earthy: it begins with a familiar Anglo-Saxonism and ends with "house"

Then I'll do a parody of an old 70's Commodores disco tune ...
 
"Well, he's a ___ house
He's mighty flighty,
Just lettin' that methane out."

Note how totally groovy I'll be. Sputter in your envious frustration.


P.S. Scienthuse -- feel free to pretend my mild humor incredibly insulting and proceed to step three: Operation Flounce.

But keep in mind that I've been asking you NICELY, politely to respond directly to my two questions on Steve Austin - Santa Cruz River many, many times now, and you've instead opted to be snarky and disrespectful first.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,19:47   

Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,20:27   

The fact of the matter stands, Scienthuse, is that you made fallacious statements, and what little efforts you made to support these fallacious statements were to appeal to the authority of known liars, or accuse us of slander when we pointed out that you and your authorities were lying.

Claiming that the duties of real life preclude and or prevent you from answering our questions and rebuttals to your fallacious claims will not win any sympathy from us, especially since you obviously appear to have more than enough time to whine about our tone, as well as accuse us of slander when we dissect your claims for bullshit content.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,20:59   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

Project much, Scienthuse?

So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  

You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time


I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time)

I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here:

----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.

Your response, Scienthuse:
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.


Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

---------------------------------

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false, bullshit-laden  "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points  MANY times:  


Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism"

False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science"
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you on radiometric dating
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios

Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens

You are corrected on helium and container rocks

You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating

You get corrected on Henry Morris here:

You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon:
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my questions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have desk computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  Here to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrected on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim here to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

You've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out, punkin'. It's not as if everyone here hasn't seen this act many times before -- The only thing that makes you "unique" is the particular depth of YEC intellectual dishonesty that you descend to.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:22   

awwww, you killed it!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:23   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,21:59)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  

You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time


I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time)

I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here:

----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.

Your response, Scienthuse:
   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.


Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

---------------------------------

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points ...well, MANY times:  


Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism"

False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science"
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you on radiometric dating
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios

Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens

You are corrected on helium and container rocks

You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating

You get corrected on Henry Morris here:

You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon:
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my qustions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  Here to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrercted on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim here to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

Suck on that, Scienthuse...oh, and you've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out,

See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards

kiss up teachers pet suck up grrrrr damn deadman always pwns the hardest

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:29   

Quote
See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards

And if not, you can award them to yourself! &%#@ da man! Anarchy now! Power to teh pipples!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,09:03   

Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.

1) Redwall Limestone and modern lime muds are different in their biologically produced material.  GC--calcite / modern lime muds--aragonite.

2)RL contains "clay sized" (smaller) calcite 4 microns.  Lime muds contain "silt sized" aragonite 20 microns.

3)Much evidence of transport and rapid water deposition in Redwall Limestone.

a)Chert--Chert resulted from diagenesis, which is chemical change after initial deposition and  lithification. Lithification is the process of water expulsion caused by pressure (which is evident in many limestone deposits).  I did not get this from AiG--this is from personal study--okay!  You guys think I'm stupid.

WHAT CAUSED the pressurized drainage which is evident in the chert????  If you counter with tectonic uplift from the ocean bottom, then you must explain the shale  that is both below and above the limestone.  It also forms under water.

b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."  Laminated algal masses show "concentric structure" (very significant evidence) and "and are best interpreted as algal masses which have been transported by rolling." Austin

4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

Mckee and Gutschick redwall

Fossils do not form by laying in shallow oxygenated waters.  Organisms will decay.

Some may suggest anoxic waters but this is not indicative of mud limes or coral reefs, neither forminafera or other phytoplankton.

Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

Uniformintarian interpretation is bogus in that it ignores obvious evidence and instead inserts and deletes certain evidences and or hypotheses where needed.  1)Because the mindset has been formed by indoctrination from grade school on--2) and because the careers and reputation of uniforms are paramount for continuance of such--there is much ignoring and "spinning" of the evidence.  All for the sake of the "grand geologic timescale model."

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,09:44   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,10:35   

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find yet another creobot is both willfully ignorant in the extreme and a liar for Jesus to boot.

Fucktard #eleventybillion

I think all we're waiting on is the homoerotic photos of professional "wrestlers" and an altar call.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:33   

So what personal studies lead you to assume that chert can be "rapidly" deposited from 40 days and 40 nights of magic rain?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,09:44)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.

"Rapid" would be defined by the evidence as follows:

1)Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial--because they are detailed--not a partially decomposed mess.  The fact that they are broken up but in "living detail" suggests transport and not decomposition.

2)I might add that this the case with many partial fossils.  They are broken but not decomposed.

As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!

 And if you think I'm a liar, I gave a link to the McKee and Gutschick research in the Redwall Formation.  It is uniformintarian in interpretation--but it will confirm that many detailed fossils exist in the RL.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:54   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial

There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,12:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,11:54)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial

There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.

I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.  But that they are in association with coral and algae in the limestone--this would suggest they came from similar habitat.

Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,12:20   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

 
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,15:22   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.

"Trying to do me right" --  on what? I point out the verticals on the Redwall limestone, their deposition and dolomitization, and how this factors into verticality that is contrary to Morris....and you trot out a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with that verticality question.

Here's what I had posted with that accompanying picture of Redwall Limestone:
   
Quote
"Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too."

So what does YOUR post have to do with that? Why, nothing! Gish Gallop!

You did this earlier with Louis -- avoid what he's talking about, whip out enirely unrelated claims on T.Rex fossils, then ---what?

Sit back and enjoy your Gish Gallop?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Besides being completely off-point, virtually all of your post is merely you regurgitating Austin at ICR here:  http://www.icr.org/article/337/ and yes, the only thing you did (other than regurgitating Austin's claims) is look up "chert" (probably on Wikipedia) -- you don't KNOW this material, you're just parroting it, and amusingly stupidly. Oh, and since you said you can give me references on these claims of yours, I want them. All of them, because I'll be asking questions that will concern them. You'll be copy-pasting them from the Austin ICR article, won't you?

Most importantly, as I said, it has nothing to do with the reason I mentioned the Redwall -- VERTICAL CLIFFS that would NOT stand up under Henry Morris' scenarios.

Austin is able to bullshit you and casual "believers"  because he's selecting out or emphasizing things in a pseudo-"sciency" way calculated, designed, intended to merely cast doubt on "long-age" claims. He's stupid,  so he figures, hey, my readers are just as stupid, too. Which is why he uses his crap as propaganda and never publishes his (relevant)  claims in peer-reviewed journals.

What I'd like YOU to do is for YOU to go beyond this little bit you've read and puked up from from Austin and give me YOUR complete scenario on

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences.   DETAILS
(illustration from here )

(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous  claims.  That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding a great deal.

In short, I'd like you to show that YOU can learn, rather than just squawk and parrot ICR and AIG. Can you? 

---------------------------------------------

And on that peer-review journal bit...the ICR and AIG seem to always tout the fact that some of their folks HAVE gotten their work in print, so how is it that you say people like Austin CAN'T? You can't have it both ways and say "look, we have creationists in peer-reviewed scientific journals !!!" and then turn around and say "The Evil Evolutionist Cabal won't let us publish in their journals"

And one final point; I'm sure you realize that once again you've failed to actually address the questions I HAVE asked (oh, about 7 or  8 times now).

Start answering MY questions and I'll start answering yours -- otherwise, you can just continue your mindless Gish-gallop parroting, and I'll just keep mocking your ignorant recycling of already-dismantled "Young-Earth" creationist claims

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,16:44   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,05:37)
Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

I now know from the quoted material that this sciencey guy is either a loki troll, or a total whack-job.

I don't care either way. I have better ways to waste time.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,16:49   

I think he's just a kid (and a troll, sure). But... since I'm only half-watching american football at the moment (grunt, snork), I have time to play "hamstring the Gish Galloper"

P.S. "Scienthuse" I'm sure you'll be directly addressing OM's questions here, right?
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

   
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,17:54   

Quote
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??

I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,18:46   

I'm just wondering how well hysterics, whining and chucking teddy from the pram regarding all Teh Meanies of Teh Internetz has served our new chum in the past. He/she seems fond of the melodramatic approach.

Frankly, my 4 month old kid can spit his dummy out with more style and panache than this latest funster. (He rolled over by himself today, I am so proud.)

Clownshoes honks in, red nose and all, and chucks whitewash around whilst telling us off for being meanies and cynical, hard hearted meanies at that. Why some of us, according to Clownshoes, don't even believe Teh Jebus was real.

Someone please think of the children.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:09   

Quote
Someone please think of the children.

Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:15   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2009,01:09)
Quote
Someone please think of the children.

Well, ap-parent-ly you just did, so that request is already satisfied. :p

Henry

My hat is off to you, sir. You never fail to pun appropriately. Here's looking at you, kid. I am now going to my new springless bed with a lady of negotiable virtue called Jenny. That's right, I'm about to be off spring with my pro Jenny.

Tip your veal, try the waitress, I'm all weak here.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,19:52   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 04 2009,17:54)
     
Quote
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone -- since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly -- in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??

I thought "uniformitarian" meant following the same rules of physics as similar processes would follow today? I.e., it doesn't imply anything about the rate of the process.

Henry

While we wait for the...er...aroma of Louis' last post to dissipate,  it's fun to see why I was pointing out that "Scienthuse's" posts also reeked, but for different reasons, and with Scienthuse's containing the familiar stench of creo-bullshit. Here's two of Scienthuse's posts:

     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."

and
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone


Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously

Yet, "Scienthuse" seems to think he's (or she, who knows) is making some really IMPORTANT POINT by saying "look, no coral reefs, ma!"

Reef systems (say, in the Ordovician) were composed primarily of stuff like crinoid, bryozoan and brachiopod communities. By the Devonian, reefs incorporated more rugose corals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugosa -- but with brachiopods and crinoids still dominating.

This continues down through the Mississippian, which is why we do find coral fossils in the Redwall Limestone -- along with all the other fossils (crinoids, brachiopods, etc) characteristic of shallow epeiric seas

It's only really since the Triassic that we see modern corals (scleractinian) and bivalves, sponges, etc as primary reef-building organisms globally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral

So, in parroting Austin -- who is simply a con-artist -- "Scienthuse" (what a misnomer portmanteau that is!) simply shows how truly ignorant of the topics he is. Well, that and he apparently can't be arsed to either think for himself OR use Wikipedia, even.

And now, we return viewers back to the regularly scheduled pun 'n fun fest.

ETA: I'll be betting that "Scienthuse" tries to respond to *this* post rather than my previous one, which he'll avoid (in any meaningful detail) like the plague.

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!


Hahaha. Shorter Scienthuse:

"Stop spanking me like that! Yes, I avoid, bullshit and fling fallacies, but I'm *innocent*!! I'm going to run away, just you wait! WATERLOO!!!"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,21:00   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:47)
As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!

Idiot.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:02   


There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:13   

Disclaimer-- I realize after reading the illustration in my previous post that 1) the Redwall Limestone is much more complex, and 2) the illustration is very inexact and there is no way to know if it is accurate.  It is an illustration designed to get an idea accross.  Mainly that the edge of thousands of cubic miles of wet sediment is not necessarily  going to collapse--otherwise one could never dig a 35  foot well through "soft wet" soil.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:19   

My thought will never be the same when I hear that someone is being parroted.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T1vfsHYiKY

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,22:41   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)

There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
       
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation? Did I gallop--nah. Probably with some metal like magnesium--since you want me to talk about dolomitic limestone.  Did I gallop--a little, i had to research a little on dolomite--isn't a troll dishonest?

Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  Maybe it has "red clay" which comes from an ooze that is 30% or less of marine shells.  Anyway, I'm sure you're going to let me know after you tell me how much I don't know about it...:D

As far as jumping through your hoops--last time I checked you weren't my professor--so I don't have an assignment due.:)

Vertical structure--Ooze? Oozes are not 95% pure CC. Well didn't I tell you once that the RL is calcite and modern oozes are aragonite.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you or I think that cliff sits as it was originally formed--you don't and I don't.  Stuff fell off of it.  If it was cut by massive amounts of water having only a little plasticity (there is a scientific word for the thickness of a solution--do you remember what it is? I'm trying not to regurgitate much), which I believe it did--the pressure made it to drain quickly and probably it had already began to have secondary chemical changes--which some scientists believe is the cause of dolomite--but they don't know for sure--so I don't either.

Okay, you keep tripping over the fact that somehow it's going to fall over--I'll say it again--IT IS NOT A WALL--IT IS THE EDGE OF THOUSANDS OF CUBIC MILES OF HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT.  

My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

Then and most importantly above all.  You have no idea how many tectonic events have affected the Grand Canyon--while (hypothetically) the material was wet and when after (hypothetically) it was cut.

You have to understand, Deadman--you have to ask!  And another thing--I think we are all taking ourselves too seriously here.  Maybe we need to take a chill pill or blood pressure or something.

If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,23:42   

Essentially, Scienthuse's argument boils down to "yes, Austin and Morris are right about how limestone can magically solidify, then be eroded because of a magical flood, and you should take a chill pill because you get mean in the way you get impatient with my inane non-responses!"

And this also fails to explain how there can be several fossil reefs preserved within the Grand Canyon, nor how the various layers of igneous rock were also magically lain down then eroded in a magical flood lasting 40 days and 40 nights.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,01:16   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 04 2009,22:41)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
There's your image deadman, and now here's your quote.
                 
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.


You gave me a pixel of the entire redwall formation, but we'll go with an initial observation.  First of all--there is no way it is 95% calcium carbonate. Do you know what is about 98% pure--the WHITE cliffs of Dover.  Did I "gallop' to know that?  Nah.  I already knew it.  

The cliffs of dover are WHITE chalk--made up of forminefera and other phytoplankton. Did I gallop--nah. Look at how RED your cliff is.  Do we need to say that's some kind of oxidation?... Limestone is not that pure. Maybe there is iron or another metal mixed in, I don't know--do you know what causes it to be red?  I'm sure you went there and analyzed the entire cliff Deadman--so why don't you tell me what it is (lol--I think we need to laugh a little).  

If you would simply google "redwall limestone"  you would find that the red is staining from the red beds of  the overlying Supai formation.

and you seem to be the only one hyperventilating.  Everyone else is just laughing.


What's even funnier is this: earlier, local resident "genius" Scienthuse posted this site as evidence:
     
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

Mckee and Gutschick redwall

If he'd actually read that information THAT HE HIMSELF CITED, he'd see this:
"The Redwall Limestone is a very pure calcium carbonate rock containing less than one percent sand and shale particles."

High Purity or HICAL (high calcium) limestone is defined as limestone at (>95% wt% CaCO3) note to Clownshoes: CaCO3 = calcium carbonate

It's used for portland cement, gas-flue desulfurization, metallurgical flux, etc.

They used to mine limestone from the Grand Canyon Redwall for high-purity limestone.  Hell, the Horseshoe and Mooney Falls members of the Redwall both contain oolitic limestone and are both over 98% pure calcium carbonates. http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/grandb.htm

They can't mine the limestone out of protected federal lands anymore, but they DO mine the Redwall limestone in Utah, where it is 99% pure CaCo3.

See:   Tripp, Bryce T. (2003) High-calcium limestone resources of Utah. Pub. Utah Geological Survey. Table, p.8

Not the best image in the world, but I just used something that you could find online so that you didn't need to hyperventilate, Clownshoes. It says "99.4%" pure CaCO3(on average).

So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?
Quote
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding

Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,02:52   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,12:20)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,12:04)
I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.

I'm sorry then, I must have missed that. What time period was that?

Your previous post, as you say gives a time span. What you have not said is what possible chronological time period that span potentially covers.

     
Quote
Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?


I don't expect an exact time. I expect a "time span" to be given in units of time, and so far I've not seen that. As far as I can tell you could be defining "rapid" as millions of years.

What's the upper limit on the the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay?

Coward.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:08   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.

Majickally, no doubt.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:16   

Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,04:18   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Well if it's 95 % CaCO3 then it must not have much CaMg(CO3)2 in it.  But I was told it does...(?) You can guess who on this post--since you have it all figured out. Where did all that go?  As I was told in a manner of speaking--terminology means things.

Does anyone know the actual % of marine shells--because OOZES and lime muds do not produce the % you are talking about?

Anyway I'll be researching it. Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

I already know how they got there and so would you if you knew how to do a search.

Why don't you answer the questions I asked you, Clownshoes?
Quote

(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:15   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?

I'll be right on that once you give a time period, in units of time, for the formation of the Redwall limestone.

You either know or you don't.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:39   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,05:16)
Anyway I'll be researching it.

Idiot.

Don't you think you might should have done that before you came in here running your mouth at a bunch of actual real-world scientists?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,05:55   

Beware, the Scienthuse Synchronized Goalpost Moving Team:



--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,09:57   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?


As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,11:29   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,20:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

You know, for a small fraction of the cost of that ridiculous "museum", AIG could have bought a few boatloads of sand and given this a try.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,12:31   

hahahahahahahaha

Scienthuse don't take it personally.  It's ok to be wrong, and be corrected.  that's what science does.  hmmm YEC, not so much.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,19:07   

Here is another picture of the Redwall Limestone that clearly demonstrates the staining:



Note the section that says "Naked Redwall" is unstained because the Supai group has either eroded away or is not exposed.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,19:33   

Quote
Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.


Those erratic boulders look pretty dangerous to me!*







*Pratchett's Interesting Times reference inside...**







**I've been waiting decades for someone to use "erratic boulders" on a forum. THAT'S commitment!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,22:23   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,09:57)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 05 2009,04:16)
 Now that you THINK your right and that you THINK you have discounted all my questions-- Why don't you guys all go research how your little Santa Cruz River got those boulders on top of that  300 foot valley?


As I said, already done:


Oh, look -- it's a striated andesitic boulder on the north side of the Santa Cruz River valley, on the San Fernando terrace at an elevation of 40 m above the river valley, 90 km away from the Atlantic Ocean, right about where Darwin recorded similar erratic blocks of similar size.



<sarcasm>Gee, I guess no one but Steve Austin has studied the area at all.</sarcasm>

From [URL=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1661&keywords=south+unstratified+deposits+contemporaneous+boulders+the+on+distribution+erratic+of+americ

a+and&pageseq=1]On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America[/URL]:

Quote
The valley in which the Santa Cruz flows, widens as it approaches the Cordillera, into a plain, in form like an estuary, with its mouth (see map, Pl. XL.) directed towards the mountains. This plain is only 440 feet above the level of the sea, and in all probability it was submerged within, or nearly within, the post-pliocene period. I am induced to form this inference from the presence of existing sea shells in the valley, and from the extension far up it of step-like terraces which on the sea-coast, certainly are of recent submarine origin. Round the estuary-like plain, and between it and the great high plain, there is a second plain, about 800 feet above the sea-level, and its surface consists of a bed of shingle with great boulders. In this part of the valley, namely, between thirty or forty miles from the Cordillera, there were, in the bed of the river, boulders* of granite, syenite and conglomerate, varieties of rock which I did not observe on the high plain; and I particularly noticed that there were none of the basaltic lava. From this latter fact and from several other circumstances, more especially from the immense quantity of solid matter which must have been removed in the excavation of the deep and broad valley, we may feel sure that the boulders on the intermediate plain and in the bed of the river, are not the wreck of those originally deposited on the high plain. These boulders, therefore, must have been transported subsequently from the Cordillera, and after an interval during which the land was modelled into the form above described. Those on the lowest plain must have been transported within, or not long before, the period of existing shells.

I have said that the first erratic block which I met with, was sixty-seven miles from the nearest slope of the Cordillera; I must, however, record the case of one solitary rounded fragment of feldspathic rock lying in the bed of the river, at the distance of 110 miles from the mountains. This fragment was seven feet in circumference, and projected eighteen inches above the surface, with apparently a large part buried beneath it. As its dimensions are not very great, we may speculate on some method of transportal different from that, by which the plain near the mountains was strewed with such innumerable boulders; for instance, of its having been imbedded in a cake of river ice. Its solitary position is, however, a singular fact.


The pictures deadman932 posted come from an interesting paper by Strelin and Malagnino that, for the most part confirms what Darwin proposed. One exception being that what Darwin thought was an paleo-estuary was actually a lake created by glacial damming. The article goes on to say:

Quote
Finally, the origin of the erratic blocks (Fig. 2) found in the lower valley of the Río Santa Cruz (Site 1, Fig. 1) has not been elucidated yet. Darwin (1842b) was sensitive to this enigma, which he tried to solve when he suggested that they could have been accumulated after rafting over fluvial ice. At present we consider this feasible and furthermore that it could have been after the catastrophic draining of the ancient Arroyo Verde morainedammed glacier-lake (Strelin and Malagnino 1996).


One interesting fact that the paper brings to light is that Darwin's observations in the area allowed later scientists to map the history and extent of glaciation in the area.
You might also find this article by Strelin et al of interest.

Edit to fix some formatting errors.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2009,22:41   

*Shakes his fist*
DAMN YOU! Damn you and your inquisitive, always-seeking-knowledge, nosy nature, you bipedal ape!


:angry:
Here's some other cites for ya:

Depetris, P. J. and A. I. Pasquini. (2000) The hydrological signal of the Perito Moreno Glacier damming of Lake Argentino (southern Andean Patagonia): the connection to climate anomalies. Global and Planetary Change 26:367–374. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921818100000497

Rott, H.; Stuefer, M.; Nagler, T.; Riedl, C. (2005) Recent Fluctuations and Damming of Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia, Observed by Means of ERS and Envisat Imagery. Proceedings of the 2004 Envisat & ERS Symposium (ESA SP-572). 6-10 September 2004, Salzburg, Austria. http://earth.esa.int/symposi....117.pdf

Skvarca, P., and R. Naruse (2006),Correspondence—Overview of the ice-dam formation and collapse of Glaciar Perito Moreno, southern Patagonia, in 2003/2004, J.Glaciol., 52(178),476–478.

Stuefer, M., H. Rott, and P.Skvarca (2007), Glaciar Perito Moreno, Patagonia: Climate sensitivities and glacier characteristics preceeding the 2003/04 and 2005/06 damming events, J.Glaciol., 53(180), 3–16.
         
Quote
The advance of Perito Moreno Glacier, a lacustrine calving glacier in Argentina, has periodically blocked a large tributary arm of the lake with dam failures there producing outburst floods that are reported to have released 3 to 4 km^3 of water http://www.uas.alaska.edu/envs....007.pdf


(the Perito Moreno is the source of the glacier-dam flooding, it does it a LOT, but flooding didn't create the entire friggin' valley -- contrary to Austin's implications, and certainly not in his implied singular megafludde)

An interesting map, by Chucky D:
First Geological Map of Patagonia: http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/raga/v64n1/v64n1a07.pdf

Stuff by Jorge Strelin et al,  minus the material which Mr. Nosy afarensis already pointed to:

Strelin, J.A. (1995). New evidences on the relationships between the oldest estra-andean glaciations in the the Santa Cruz River area. A.A. Balkema, Quaternary of South America and Antarctic Peninsula 9: 105-116, Rotterdam.

Strelin, J.A. and Malagnino, E.C. (1996). Glaciaciones Pleistocenas del Lago Argentino y Alto Valle del Río Santa Cruz. 13° Congreso Geológico Argentino, Actas 4: 311-326.

:)
--------------------------------------

ETA: I forgot about this one:
Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Miguel Griffin, Victor A. Ramos (2009) Darwin's geological research in Argentina. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. v.64 n.1 Buenos Aires ene./mar. 2009 http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.....arttext

In contrast to Austin's petty, propaganda-driven bullshit faulting Darwin for not being right about the erratics (when Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time), it's interesting to see how much he got right at that distant date, and the sheer breadth & scope of the cross-disciplinary work he did by himself.

This is really important, for people interested in such topics, as opposed to wankers like clownshoes:

http://www.scielo.org.ar/cgi-bin/wxis.exe/iah/

That link gives access to papers like these:

Ramos, Victor A. (2009) Darwin at Puente del Inca: observations on the formation of the Inca's bridge and mountain building. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.170-179. ISSN 0004-4822

Vizcaíno, Sergio F., Fariña, Richard A. and Fernicola, Juan Carlos (2009) Young Darwin and the ecology and extinction of pleistocene south american fossil mammals. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.160-169. ISSN 0004-4822

Fernicola, Juan Carlos, Vizcaíno, Sergio F. and De Iuliis, Gerardo (2009) The fossil mammals collected by Charles Darwin in South America during his travels on board the HMS Beagle. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.147-159.

Iriondo, Martin and Kröhling, Daniela (2009) From Buenos Aires to Santa Fe: Darwin's observations and modern knowledge. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.109-123.

Martínez, Oscar A., Rabassa, Jorge and Coronato, Andrea (2009) Charles Darwin and the first scientific observations on the patagonian shingle formation (Rodados Patagónicos). Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.90-100.

Giambiagi, Laura, Tunik, Maisa, Ramos, Victor A. et al. (2009) The High Andean Cordillera of central Argentina and Chile along the Piuquenes Pass-Cordon del Portillo transect: Darwin's pioneering observations compared with modern geology. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.43-54.

Aguirre-Urreta, Beatriz and Vennari, Verónica (2009) On Darwin's footsteps across the Andes: Tithonian-Neocomian fossil invertebrates from the Piuquenes pass. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent., Mar 2009, vol.64, no.1, p.32-42.

AND 11 OTHER QUALITY PAPERS ON DARWIN'S WORK (just click the "texto en inglés" link next to each title)

Come to think of it, it might be useful for someone to notify the Pharyngula and ERV groups, etc. on these. Alas I don't have an insider pass to those folks. I am sooooo lonely :(

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,00:10   

Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.

But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Oct. 05 2009,22:10

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,06:44   

On Agassiz, Darwin in his 1842 work, linked to in my previous comment, had this to say:

Quote
M. Agassiz has shown that blocks of rock are not imbedded in the ice of the Swiss glaciers, except high up near their sources, and that those numerous masses which lie on the surface, from not being exposed to much abrasion, remain angular: hence only loose angular blocks of rock (as was the case with those on the floating ice in Sir G. Eyre's Sound) can be transported by icebergs, detached from the glaciers of temperate countries. And to effect this, the icebergs must be floated off perpendicularly and in large masses, for otherwise the loose fragments would be at once hurled into the sea. These remarks do not necessarily apply to icebergs formed under a polar climate, for if a glacier in its descent, reached the sea before the fragments of rock which had fallen on the soft snow had come to the surface, icebergs would be produced with imbedded fragments of rock: I have described in the 'Geographical Journal'* the case of one huge fragment thus circumstanced, seen drifting far from land in the Antarctic Ocean.


--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,14:30   

Ack, Mr. afarensis is right, as usual. When I said " Darwin couldn't have even known about Agassiz' "glacier theories" at the time," I was careless.

Darwin, in April of 1834 (the time of the Santa Cruz investigation), hadn't heard of Agassiz' theories.

By 1837, He had. Darwin expressed criticisms of Agassiz glacier theories in his Voyage of the Beagle, here and here.


Quote
"M. Agassiz has lately (Address to the Helvetic Society, July 1837, translated in Jameson's New Philosophical Journal, vol. xxiii., p. 364, and in several communications in the French periodical L'Institut) written on the subject of the glaciers and boulders of the Alps. He clearly proves, as it appears to me, that the presence of the boulders on the Jura cannot be explained by any debacle, or by the power of ancient glaciers driving before them moraines, or by the subsequent elevation of the surface on which the boulders now lie. M. Agassiz also denies that they were transported by floating ice, but he does not fully state his objections to this theory; nor does he oppose it, by the argument of the apparent anomaly of a low descent of glaciers."


By 1842, when Darwin had written " On the distribution of the erratic boulders and on the contemporaneous unstratified deposits of South America " (Transactions of the Geological Society of London. 6: 415-432.), Darwin had read Agassiz' "Étude sur les glaciers" (1841) and disagreed with Agassiz claims.

Darwin wrote to Lyell that Darwin believed Agassiz "confessed" therein that  
Quote
"ordinary glaciers could not have transported the blocks there & if an hypothesis is to be introduced, the sea is much simpler" Letter 595 — Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, [12? Mar 1841]



Darwin obviously knew about Agassiz' glacier theories when Darwin wrote up the erratics piece -- he simply disagreed with Agassiz' mechanism. I had meant to simply refer to the 1834 Santa Cruz expedition, and neglected to clarify my point. Either way, it was lazy to phrase things the way I did.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,18:37   

Yeah, I realized the distinction you were making later.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,19:03   

You still seemed to have scared away Clownshoes. I blame you for breaking this toy.

THIS is why we can't have fun things around here anymore.

Well, that plus Louis' mum still ... oh, well, never mind.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,19:11   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 06 2009,19:03)
You still seemed to have scared away Clownshoes. I blame you for breaking this toy.

THIS is why we can't have fun things around here anymore.

Well, that plus Louis' mum still ... oh, well, never mind.

Sorry :(  Didn't mean to break the toy....

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2009,23:05   

that toy was already broke it was just waiting for the wheels to come off.  mebbe he joined the mormons

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,02:25   

It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,03:38   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,08:25)
It would be interesting to point out the parallels between our two current shewtoys' arguments (FL and Clownshoes). Very similar tactics at time. WE know these kind of tactics, but it might enlighten the casual onlooker.

Just a thought...

Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic.

FL has the additional element of "NUH UH you didn't say anything, lalalalalalalala can't hear you!", and both of them exhibit the wonderful creationist favourite of convenient relativism. I.e. they are dishonestly relativist when it suits them to be, they'll fall back on "same evidence, two interpretations" or an insinuation of this kind.

All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.

Louis

ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,03:51   

Naahh. You summed it up quite nicely...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,04:34   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?

Yes. I'd like that in Finnish and ...ummm...one of those African click languages, plz.

Arden can help you -- he said he's mastered many a tongue, something about Carlson's mum, etc.

ETA: Also, you guys/gals should be ashamed of tormenting poor little Clownshoes. (he did seem like a sock rather than a shoe).

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,08:01   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,04:34)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
ETA: Oh you want a serious analysis, with examples? You think their schtick is worth it?

Yes. I'd like that in Finnish and ...ummm...one of those African click languages, plz.

You mean like the !Kung?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,08:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 07 2009,10:34)
[SNIP]

(he did seem like a sock rather than a shoe).

My feelings precisely. Mind you, I am so jaded with all this nonsense I am pretty sceptical about anyone on the net advancing anything. I've wasted vastly too much of my time chasing trolls and the utterly intellectually vacuous around their arguments. If someone genuinely novel and useful came along I'd be amazed, but until then, my care factor is loooooooow.

What really annoys me is this applies to the "bigwigs" too. If you've followed the Sullivan letters debacle on Jason Rosenhouse's blog, or (as any UD follower knows) Dembski's more academic works, or pretty much any theological "debate" the same shit applies. Bigger words and more erudite expression perhaps but the same asinine logical errors, the same evasion the same strawmen. The straw that broke this camel's back was Mark Vernon's book "After Atheism", it wasn't just bad, it was beautifully bad, so bad I was/am nearly inspired to write a book length rebuttal. If only my time wouldn't be utterly wasted in doing so, I think I would actually bother. My time is better spent with a book in hand, even one containing a bad argument like Vernon's, than chasing the asinine irrelevancy of another GoP, Skeptic or AFDave, or even (especially) someone with more time than sense imitating one of these bozos.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but, well, tough!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,10:44   

Oh, I agree for the most part, BUT there's a need for bullshit to be countered in the most efficient way, and dealing with the really smarmy types like AFDave or GoP or better yet, the "academics" ... it gives training in knowing, anticipating, countering and defeating their bullshit.

I think it can also fairly be said that the proper Bible-thumper can force deeper examinations of science (or other) topics that are rarely addressed in texts. Like the ongoing Dembski information debacle, maybe.

ETA: I'm not disagreeing that it's largely a waste of time, of course. But it does have some utilitarian value, however slight. I'd hate to see what the U.S. would look like if the Bible-thumpers were never opposed at every (meaningful) turn. Probably like this:    


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,14:17   

{Puts on vaguely serious hat for once}

Deadman,

Purpose and utility: I'm going to divide this into two types: personal and general.

The general purpose and utility of arguing with denialists of any stripe in any forum is undeniable. They need countering vocally in public and I fully agree that the web is a good place to "train" and cut one's chops so to speak. Not only that but for the professional combating of denialist nonsense it serves as an excellent way to gather information. Out of such efforts have things like the discovery of the Wedge document arisen. On the wider picture you and I are in full agreement.

The personal purpose and utility of arguing is also undeniable, but only up to a certain point. Yes, as mentioned above, it can serve as great training. Yes, it can force one to examine subjects one might not have even considered before. That for me personally has been the greatest utility. I've learned about areas of study I didn't know existed and my offline pursuit of understanding of them has broadened my education considerably. I have a vastly better understanding of how deeply ignorant I am about a huge amount of stuff! The more I learn, the more ignorant I realise I am. It's very humbling and very challenging. It makes me want to correct that ignorance ever more.

I agree think challenging yourself by arguing with people holding different ideas is a good thing, it's how I changed a lot of my old, dodgier ideas for one, and you're right it forces a deeper examination both personally and on a wider level. That said, for any given individual, that utility dramatically drops off when they've learned the general pattern of fundy funster behaviour etc. When the "basics" are learned then time offline, maybe even several years worth, is what's needed. The online antics and "debate" become a distraction from the pursuit of that self education that the original spurt of online antics and debate illustrated a need for.

For example, can you really say that any creationist has presented you with anything intellectually challenging within the last year (likely more than that)? Many of the people here have finely honed, highly tuned, massive calibre muppet guns. Let's for the sake of argument assume that Clownshoes is serious. Let's assume Clownshoes is a genuine creationist, a real person, most likely from somewhere in the central/southern USA who sincerely believes what he/she is typing out here. The second someone like Clownshoes puts finger to keyboard  half a dozen of us blow him out of the internet. These poor stooges have no chance, hence why they resort to the usual bullshit they do (tone concern, evasion, Gish Gallops etc etc). How many times have you played out the Grand Canyon arguments? How many times has the information issue been discussed? How many times has each and every one of us described the various modes of selection, the various types of speciation etc. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's not a challenge any more.

Also, let's be blunt, playing on the web has its uses but it's hardly real life activism. I think few, if any, of us can claim to contribute what, for example, Wes does in real life for the cause of combating antievolution. Things like PT, Pharyngula etc have grown out of people mucking about on TO, so I know this has its purposes and utility.

My comment above is more to do with individual utility. I'm not going to, or at least very unlikely to, go into combating antievolution in a direct professional sense. Hence this has reached a natural endpoint of utility for me. I don't need or want to tilt at every windmill that appears. I don't for one second criticise those who do, after all I did that too, it just no longer serves the purpose for me it once did. I have new things to learn. Hence why my continued ennui with the whole shebang. I will mention on very large caveat: should new evidence come up, or should a new creationist genuinely interested in discussion as opposed to recycling AIG misconceptions arrive, I'll change my tune. The intellectual to and fro is exciting, useful and interesting. Previous bouts have illustrated to me the glaring holes in my knowledge I need to fill, so my bookshelves now grown with a huge amount of books on evolutionary biology (all read), geology (some read), philosophy (some read) and theology (some read) etc. Amazon.co.uk has done very well out of me and my horizons have been sufficiently expanded to allow me to know what I need to learn better. I need to get on with doing that, and I am.

I hang around because, well, and don't take this the wrong way, I like you guys! The banter is, well, pretty silly, and that amuses me. The fact that there are a hardcore group of people that can swing into action at the merest sniff of a muppet is hilarious, and I'm still learning things from you guys occasionally (esp for example about computer science and information theory).

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,14:29   

But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,14:41   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 07 2009,20:29)
But, Louis, what about doing it for shit and giggles? It's not so much time consuming when you can home onto the creotards' stupidity in one go. your wit would be sadly miss here if you just went away.

for the sake of Fun, keep up the fight! :D

I'm not going anywhere, but I'm certainly not going to put any effort into dealing with the odd creationist stooge that pops up. If they can't meet the barest minimum standard of intellectual honesty and novelty then why waste my time with them (apart from for shits and giggles of course)?

Mind you, it isn't as much fun for me as once it was, I crave the novel, the challenging, these guys simply cannot manage that any more. Plus I have serious real world commitments, so it's convenient that I care a little less because otherwise I'd be annoyed by wanting to bat the silly fuckers across the internet!

As for wit? Wit? WIT? Please! I make occasional low grade dick jokes.......oh I see what you mean, yeah, I'm fucking hilarious, me! ;-)

Louis

ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many. I wonder what else I could have done with the time. For example I understand the internet has something called "pornography" on it. Now mental masturbation is all well and good, but it's no substitute for the real thing. Ask Deadman, he'll tell you. He is something of an autophilia enthusiast (as well as a scuridophile).

--------------
Bye.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,14:47   

Louis, i agree with you.  I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,14:59   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,20:47)
Louis, i agree with you.  I have only been doing this a couple of months and I am sick and tired of trying to have a discussion with people whose only skill is cut and paste. I mean, are they even capable of having an original thought?

It was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel for a while, but now it's more like kicking puppies.

It's a great tool to train oneself on, as Deadman rightly says, but after that I really think one's time is better spent in the library. You really do get to a point where your denialist bashing skills and basic knowledge are sufficient to take on pretty much all comers when it comes to creationists.

To be blunt, there really aren't that many novel creationist ideas and strategies. They've been recycling the same few for decades, and borrowing from silly post modernists and other species of denialist (look at Holocaust denialists and attempts to bait Deborah Lipstadt into "debates" for example). It's just not that much of a challenge to be frank. I can imagine that the frustration of someone like Genie Scott (or Wes or your average US high school science teacher) who has to fight these fuckers in the field day in day out is enormous. It's important that they continue to do the excellent work they do though, and more power to them.

And I'm sure creationists have the capacity for original thought, in fact I know it's the case, I've worked with creationist colleagues who were excellent chemists. It's the same with all denialists, there is this (sometimes narrow) subset of their intellectual life where all reason seems to fly out of the window, and it's often for very profoundly personal reasons. I doubt you could, for example, find an ardent, active proponent of creationismwho didn't think that their open advocacy of creationism was tied to them being a good christian (and hence a good patriot or person etc). Look  at the FL thread, the guy is basically having a brainfart every time someone so much as mentions a different species of christianity. He literally cannot get his mind around the concept, and worse, he is trying very, very hard not to. It's illuminating.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,16:53   

Louis: on the same note, seeing denialist abuse of logic has been illuminating to me, if for no other reason than that it has given me a "as it happens" perspective on a number of informal logical fallacies.

Pretty much like solving a problem with a classmate giving another perspective on a mathematical principle as opposed to reading the proof in one sitting.

Plus, there are numerous people on this forum that I'd like to have a beer with, should the temporal and geographical opportunity arise. Sorry FL/Clownshoes, you're not included in that group.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1431
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,18:03   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,14:41)
ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many.

Dare we hope for the traditional Tardologue commemorating the event?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,18:46   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 08 2009,00:03)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,14:41)
ETA: I'm also homing in on my 5000th post, which is far too many.

Dare we hope for the traditional Tardologue commemorating the event?

Possibly. I might break with the Hughes instigated tradition and do something serious about science.

Probably not, but I did briefly consider the idea.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,18:55   

shorter Louis:  I'm just here to meet boyfriends.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,18:55   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Oct. 06 2009,00:10)
Scheeze you guys, I was merely going to point out that Darwin never got close to the top of the canyon where he would have found live glaciers. According to his log of the trip, they had to turn back when the Andes were just in view.


But you have so totally demolished the stupidity of creato chew-toy sciencylouse that I feel quite redundant.

This was not caused by a glacier.
Durham Canyon

You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:00   

riiiiight

tillable soil = solid rock

WATERLOOOOO

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:04   

And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory.  The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed.  i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.

Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:07   

Quote
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.


yeah me too.  if you look reeeeeallllly closely at Louis's crotch (it's OK, I already saw you doing that anyway) you can see the fleshlight winking on and off.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:09   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

What I posted about the redwall:
 
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985


Notice the part I bolded above, Clownshoes. It's in my original post. I also posted this:

 
Quote
"Notice that scienthuse is utterly ignorant of some basic facts: The redwall limestone generally dates from the early to middle Mississippian. In the grand canyon this limestone averages about 450 feet in thickness and 335 million years in age. It holds fossil corals, along with the bryozoans, crinoids, brachipods and other critters mentioned previously" [URL=http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=6310;st=90#entry155099[/url]


So...what did I get wrong? Be specific, Clownshoes.

No one asked you a "million" questions, you simply got over a dozen things demonstrably, provably wrong, as I listed.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:15   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
]
This was not caused by a glacier.
Durham Canyon

Let me get this straight. You are comparing erosion of unconsolidated top soil to erosion of consolidated rock? hahahahahahahahhahahhhahahahaha.  OUch, I think I pulled something!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:20   

Well, to be fair, Clownshoes DID write this bit of genius I mentioned previously:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 05 2009,04:08)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,22:02)
My little illustration--Say you were assigned to make  a 2 foot thick wall of wet sand by 8 feet long.  You began to pile it up and shape it.  How high do you think you could get it before it fell.  Just off the top of your head what?  6 feet 8 feet maybe?    Now if you had to make (hypothetically) a 100 foot thick wall by say 1000 feet long.  How high could get it?  Just say 300 feet.   Now if you had packed it good.   Now leave it set for a few months and come back and and start digging a trench through the thickness--for 100 foot. Dig it 50 foot deep--what would happen.  You think it would collapse?  Some of it would some of it wouldn't.  Like your picture.  It would eventually harden and stuff would keep falling  off now and then.

This was the funniest part, really. If you read it carefully, it's like someone on hallucinogens -- or maybe with brain damage -- wrote it.

Apparently, wet sand formed into a wall "300 feet" high (on a base 100 feet thick) ... left to dry for months...doesn't all collapse when one digs into it.

Majickally, no doubt.

So, yeah -- sand, unconsolidated soil, schist, sandstone, dolostone...all the same damn thing to Clownshoes.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,19:32   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 07 2009,03:38)
Their tactics are a combination of Seagull and Princess of the Politeness Police.

The seagull element involves them flying in, squawking loudly and shitting everywhere, the PotPP element involves them pre-emptively whining about Teh Meanness so they have an excuse to run away or ignore inconvenient things like facts or logic...All very familiar, all very pathetic. Watch the tu quoque this engenders.
--Louis


   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,18:55)
You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.


 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:04)
Seriously, it amazes me that you guys are scientists or professors or whatever you are.  Some of you are very juvenile--you just use big words to cover it up.



LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:04   

i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:32   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
i still think it's broken, just a little juice left in the battery

That may explain the change of subject.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,20:41   

Deadman wrote      
Quote
So, why didn't you answer my questions above, Scienthuse?
Quote
(1) how the Redwall formed and how it was deposited IN CONTEXT of other underlying and overlying strata, keeping in mind basic rules of deposition like Stokes' Law. I don't want guesses here, I want evidence-supported materials, showing how such rapid formation is even possible at all, FOR the Redwall and surrounding strata...a COMPLETE PICTURE, WITH REFERENCES.
(2) How the Redwall lithified and dolomitized -- with chert lenses from silicified algal mats. NO GUESSES, DETAILS, baby. WITH references, please.
(3) Karstic erosion surfaces (with sinkhole/caves!) and paleosols (old land surfaces) resulting from multiple "long-time" transgression- regression
sequences. DETAILS
(4) How those fossil crinoid, bryozoan, coral and brachiopod fossils formed at all. DETAILS!! Make sure you include a section on ichnofossil burrows found in the Redwall Members...that don't fit Austin's previous claims. That way, maybe we can get Austin to deal with Glenn Morton in person, here -- something Austin has been avoiding

Can't do that, can you? Not with any of your YEC resources online. Oh, yeah -- I'm really unnerved and on edge about your teenage incompetence and that of Steve Austin ( who's only just a little better at bullshitting than you, Clownshoes) .


Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  

I understand it enough to know that there are plenty of problematic questions   (in reference to origins), so I have a problem with being interrogated and insulted by educated people who know the problems or things science can not account for.  The origin of dolomite is one --so why would you demand me to give account for it--when scientist can not find dolomite being formed??   I said once they believe it could have undergone a secondary chemical  change because of pressure and/or heat but there is no proof of this. Dolomite

Stokes Law--What is it you are getting at here? Are you suggesting that water does not move boulders?

I don't know if this is possible but I  wish you would stop pushing me as far as time.  I am very busy and all the referencing and research will take time.  Sometimes I have more time but now is not good.

I would like to say this to everyone here in closing.  Can this go on the record, so that everyone here will know what I understand.  I am well aware of the fact--before I got here--of the fact that limestone is currently forming from corals and other organisms  in shallow calm marine waters. Forminefera, and phytoplankton are also forming calcereous  oozes in deeper waters and these are the most common over the deeper ocean floor.

The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

Then I will begin on deadman's questions.  I don't know if you guys will wait that long though.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:04   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:41)
Deadman let's take your last line there.  Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence.  I don't remember claiming to be a PhD or a professor or an authority in science.  Can you find that post?  But that does not mean I don't understand anything about standard geology, or  chemistry, or biology, or cytology, or bacteria.  

Hey, idiot.

First, he would be implying, not inferring.

Second, he's not implying anything. He's flat out saying it. Repeatedly. And he's right.

Third, not having a PhD does not mean you don't understand anything about those topics.

Not having a fucking clue however, does.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:34   

Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:36   

Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:41   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,21:34)
Scienthuse, check out a couple of books by donald l baars:  Navajo Country and The Colorado Plateau.  pages 16-19 in the latter talk about the deposition of the Redwall Limestone.  

Neither book is going to do you much good however if you continue to hang on to a 6000 year old earth perspective.

Thank you nmgirl.  I will.  I'm not "hanging on."  Give me some time here--I don't have much.  I need to be getting this post ready.  But I will remember his name--and thank you again.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,21:36)
The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

Hey, genius, try reading my post for comprehension. I said there are thousands of feet of OVERLAY on top of the redwall.

     
Quote
Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154985

This doesn't mean that I said the CLIFFS are thousands of feet in exposed height. Do you know what "stratigraphic column" means? I posted an illustration that was just that.

P.S. the context of your statement: " Are you inferring that I am misrepresenting myself or evidence. " means that Lou is right. Beyond this, there is the Oxford English Dictionary remark on the matter. The OED being  the gold standard for Dictionaries:
Quote
— USAGE The words imply and infer do not mean the same thing. Imply is used with a speaker as its subject, as in he implied that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that the speaker is suggesting something though not making an explicit statement. Infer is used in sentences such as we inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor, and indicates that something in the speaker’s words enabled the listeners to deduce that the man was a traitor. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/imply?view=uk



I wasn't "inferring" anything from your statements nor is that able to be rationally derived from my comment that you cited. Is english your first language or do you have some kind of learning disability? I'm asking this directly because this is not the first or even third time that you have shown major comprehension problems

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,21:59   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,22:36)
Hey troublemaker.  Infer and imply are the same thing.

Infer 1 : "to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire — L. A. White> — compare imply"  

Imply 2 : "to involve or indicate by inference...."

I guess you don't know everything--but you think you do--that's YOUR problem--not mine --that's why I learn.  Take a lesson bright boy.

The height of the cliffs are 150-200m not thousands as deadman said.

The purity of the redwall which I was not aware of (because there are different purities of limestones) argues against primary formation.  Where's the silicate and sand from the ocean bottom(s)?

This is not from Steve Austin--it's from me.  I going to give you guys a research post after I ignore your arrogant bursts of deranged gloating.  What kind of science is this?

See you later.

No, they are not, tardbucket. Read the fucking definitions you just posted, moron.

And from what you've shown just in that one post, you contradict your own assertion in the next sentence about learning.

Fucktard.

Also, again, note what I mentioned the last time.

You might should do the goddamned research before you run your yap at people who've devoted their lives to studying the subjects on which you're bloviating.

BEFORE.

BEFORE.

BE FUCKING FORE

Get it? Should I misspell it for you, too? Would that help, if I spoke in fluent creobotese?

Put in the time and the work first. The conclusion comes last. After. After you learn the basics, after you do the research, after the evidence is gathered, after it's evaluated, after it's reviewed.

You haven't even started learning the basics, and you're going to lecture geologists about geology?

Ha. Your unjustifiable arrogance is as great as your complete ignorance. Project much?

Clown shoes.

Idiot.

Dining room table.

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,22:06   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,19:55)
This was not caused by a glacier.
Durham Canyon

You really crack me up guys.  This place is like a high school locker room.

Your strategy is to ask a million questions, gripe because I don't address all of them.  Then comes all the trash talk and name calling because "I'm scared,"  or "I'm a creobot."

Then you find some little fact that I got wrong which has nothing to do with the evidence or argument at all.  

I'm not done--I've been busy with work--you ever heard of it? I'll give you a nice research paper. Then you answer the EVIDENCE, not me.  

I already found a fact that deadman got wrong--namely the height of the redwall cliffs--by quite a bit.  Oh my, SEE, that means evolution is false because deadman got the height of the cliffs wrong!  That's called sarcasm, lest my words be used against me.  But will you ride that one for the next 50 posts--no because he's your boy!

That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.

trash talk and name calling comes because you, somehow, think "this was not caused by a glacier" is relevant to the discussion.

because you fail to read for comprehension and then piss and moan about the height of the cliffs.

because you try to sneak bullshit lines like "all the evidence for a young earth" like there was any.

it's old hat, friend.  you should ask blipey for some tips on how to make this clown shtick a little more believable.  but then, he takes it seriously.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2009,22:25   

Quote
The problem has been that everyone wants to control the debate.  I will ask no questions--I want only to do one small  research post and if you can rip it apart then go ahead.  I will just learn.

1. This isn't a "debate" in any meaningful sense.
2. I'd love to see your "research" post. It should be a hoot, given your track record so far.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,00:06   

I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1030
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,01:07   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:41)
The issue is not whether the redwall was formed by corals and other calcite producing organisms but whether the origin of the formation is primary?  Is it in place, or is it a result of transport?  This is why I wish to present evidence that has not been mentioned here on this forum.

Given that the Redwall formation is found in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and California one doubts it was transported.

Edit to add link.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,01:19   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 07 2009,22:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

Because big numbers are scary and confuse them?
Maybe they can't count that high :p

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:32   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,00:55)
shorter Louis:  I'm just here to meet boyfriends.

Dammit. Rumbled.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:39   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:48   

Quote
That's the reasoning you guys use.  Oh-- clown shoes made a mistake, so that means he knows nothing, therefore all evidence for a young earth is nullified and evolution is true.


Clownshoes, no one has said this, no one would say this. If they said this in my presence I would be all over them vastly harder than I would pounce on any mistake you may or may not have made.

I know this is shocking, but just maybe, juuuuuust maybe there are a couple of punters here that know more about this subject than you, or even your heroes Gish, Ham, Baugh, Hovind etc etc etc etc ad very large nauseum.

I know, shocking isn't it. Anyway, I know you're having fun sneering at people with a greater understanding of the subjects at hand than you, and nailing yourself to a martyr's cross because we're so mean, so I'll leave you to enjoy yourself.

Louis

ETA: In case you haven't got it yet, take this tiny piece of advice: You said you work in the building trade. I couldn't build a building if my life depended on it, I haven't the first clue about building. Oh I can stick one brick on top of another with some tiny chance of not being mocked off the site by a real bricky. Both my grandfathers were chippies and taught me a lot so I can do a good bit of carpentry. I know some basic electrics and plumbing, but beyond that I leave it all to the relevant experts. I know my limits. This doesn't mean I cannot learn these things, this means I currently have not learned them. (Same applies to you btw)

Imagine if I came to your workplace, the pub/bar you have a beer in with your buddies, or perhaps even a message board on the internet you frequent which, whilst there is a lot of irrelevant banter and silliness, was populated by a bunch of builders and experts on building topics. Imagine I then burst into this place and started spouting off about how stupid what all these people thought and knew was, how sophomoric and mean they all were. Imagine if I started regurgitating age old nonsense, long refuted, about how to build a house by hanging bricks on sky hooks and building down (sky hooks it should be noted, don't exist). Imagine if I did so very arrogantly, with a tone of condescension. What reaction would I get? Like it or not this is the equivalent of what you are doing.

You might not realise it but you are utterly transparent in this regard. We've seen it all before. Your claims aren't new, your manner is certainly not new, and the utter pap you are spouting about science is hilariously nonsensical. It's ok, I know you don't get this. Just think about it. As mean as Lou's message comes across, as mean as I come across (and I am a terrible meanie!), listen to it, he's right. Do your research FIRST. It's pretty clear that you haven't despite what you claim.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,04:53   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,01:32)
[SNIP]

LOUIS IS A PSYCHO PSYCHIC

You were right first time.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,06:12   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,01:06)
I started reading Baar's book again and as he talks about the beauty and majesty of the Grand Canyon as seen from a small raft on the river, I just don't understand why YECs have to believe in this 6000 year old earth and things happening in just moments.  Can't they see the wonder of millions of years of geologic activity, one process building on the other to create this fantastic place? Why is this not evidence of creation over millions of years?

He can't see it that way because he is stuck with his literalist interpretation of the bible.  Giving up on that would be like giving up on God.  To me it is a form of idolatry, worshiping the book, rather than God.  The earth has to have been created in 6 days.  There has to have been a world-wide flood.  It says so in the bible!

It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

That's why they come here and spout off about subjects they know little about and lecture experts on the "facts", the real "truth".  They think we're the ones with the blinders on, we're the ones with the closed minds.  Why don't we open our eyes to the real truth?  It comes from God, so it must be true!  How can we leave out God and learn anything about his creation?  This makes no sense to them.  In fact, it is a threat to their own faith.  We can't be right.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:36   

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:39   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 07 2009,20:04)
And just for the record--the post that I put down that starting all your moaning about cutting and pasting--That was actually an outline by memory.  The one you called the gish gallop.

I had spent two hours preparing with quotes, references and elaboration when my system crashed.  i had to put it down quickly or guys would have whined or claimed that I had run out of steam or something.

I see you didn't look up "Gish Gallop". Your original post would have been an example of a Gish Gallop.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,07:45   

let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:40   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:41   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

Starting?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:54   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them

The bible they read is at least a translation of a translation of a compromise set of documents of various ages written by different authors at different times with different goals which have been abridged, added to and modified several times before and after the specific translation they are dealing with. And even then it has to pass the filter of their preconceptions derived from their cultural and social prejudices and ideas.

This isn't a criticism by the way. It is practically impossible for any one individual (or even group of collaborating individuals) to do anything else with a "book" (it really isn't a single book) of this historical nature. That's even granting them the ability to do so as objectively as possible in the absence of the huge cultural significance and social environment that such a "book" has.

The "literal" reading they claim to give this "book" really is nothing of the kind. Even the sophisticated theologians are really doing little more than the best that literary criticism and analysis can achieve with (for example) The Lord of the Rings. At best the biblical scholarship that is so often trotted out as some kind of defence of a specific religious interpretation rises to the level of an English Literature major/student/academic's literary criticism. At the worst it is navel gazing, the self referential arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I.e. utterly useless unless you sign up to their beliefs in the first place, and pretty much useless even then.

BTW I agree with you that the subtext (and it ain't very sub!) of the dreck spouted by FL and chums is "ZOMG YOU DOODS GOING TO HELLZ!!!!!!!!1111!!!111ONEELEVEN1111!!!!! I'M DUN WANNA GOES TO HELL I'MA GONNA STICK WITH MAH JEBUS!!!!!!!111!!!!1!!1"

It's funny, but it's very dumb and very annoying.

Louis

I agree completely.  I have to laugh whenever someone tells me they don't interpret the bible, the just do what it says.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,08:56   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,15:41)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,13:45)
let's face it: it's always nice to find a chewtoy willing to run the gautlet for our amusement. But this one (and FL) are starting to get tiresome...

Starting?

Louis

yes, because before that I was most happy to use their names in search of funny anagrams.

For exemple, Floyde Lee gloriously comes out as Yodel Elf...


EDIT: and you, Louis, come out as Oil Us...weird...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:11   

{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}

Quote


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]


That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:20   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:11)
{Aside: SD are you prepared, you are about to enter the AtBC upper echelons, I have spoken to the Masters and your admission has been agreed. You will be taught the secret handshake. How you respond to this post will determine your level of entry. Choose carefully.}

 
Quote


[SNIP]

Oil Us

[SNIP]


That's what your mum and female relatives/girlfriend said.

Thank you.

Louis

Er....herm.....



PM me for my mom's and "relative" girlfriends contacts (including phone numbers, facebook accounts, yearly OBGY results and such...)

So, about that promotion...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:25   

About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:34   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,10:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

This is how it works:

HAR HAR, THIS IS YOU!



--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:36   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:37   

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,15:34)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,10:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

This is how it works:

HAR HAR, THIS IS YOU!


Well done PPB, and excellent illustration of what we were looking for. You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,09:39   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:36)
[snip]

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. .
[snip]
Louis

Shorter Louis: "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?!?!"

PS: I really want to see Clownshoes' "research"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,10:18   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:40)
Quote (JonF @ Oct. 08 2009,13:36)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,07:12)
It's the same thing with FL.  You can see the fear in his writing.  He can't allow for the possibility that things are not as he believes them to be.  Christians who veer from the straight and narrow of his biblical Christianity are in danger.  If they abandon the faith, they're on the down elevator to hell.

Yup. I call it the Get Out Of Hell Free Card.

  • I gotta have a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • If I do all the right stuff, I get a Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • But if I have to interpret the Bible, I might interpret it wrong.
  • If I interpret the Bible wrong, I might not get my Get Out of Hell Free Card.
  • Therefore the Bible must be inerrant un-inerpretable so I don't have to make any choices and can be assured of getting my Get Out of Hell Free Card.

But the problem is they do interpret the bible. There is no other option available to them.

Of course. But that's the lie they have to tell themselves.

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,10:38   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,10:37)
You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.

A go on Arden?  What would I have gotten if I had won?

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,10:39   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 08 2009,15:39)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,09:36)
[snip]

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. .
[snip]
Louis

Shorter Louis: "Damn! Why didn't I think of that?!?!"

PS: I really want to see Clownshoes' "research"

Oh please. *I* didn't think of something utterly inappropriate and disgusting? Where have you been this last billion years or so?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,12:36   

The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,12:40   

Quote (ppb @ Oct. 08 2009,16:38)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,10:37)
You win 3 quatloos and a go on Arden.

A go on Arden?  What would I have gotten if I had won?

4 qualtoos, 1 internet and a "Get out of goes on Arden" card for one week.

Anyway, he's greased himself up and he's ready to go. Well, I say "he" but there's no real way to tell any more. I just go by the amount of hair and hope for the best.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,13:09   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,05:39)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis

I was on a short homework and study break. I had a midterm in World Lit at 8 this morning.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,13:28   

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

  
OWKtree



Posts: 16
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,13:50   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
The last six pages of chewtoy-dom aside does the acceptance of geological "deep time", a long age of the earth, etc. therefore require the acceptance of evolutionary theory to explain the development of life on the aged orb?

I think any explanation that the current (or very similar to current) lifeforms were developed at that time (e.g. multiple billions of years ago) and have existed in something close to a static state for that length of time is:
1. Not supported by the fossil evidence
2. Not supported by the DNA evidence (pointing to development and diversity of species in relatively rapid time frames.)

To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

I am working this from the opposite tack - assuming you accept deep time and the geology, what are the rational options for explaining the diversity and scope of life on the planet given the existing evidence?

- Kurt

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,13:52   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 08 2009,13:28)
I don't think you can even discuss evolution without an acceptance of deep time. And i don't understand how you can know anything about geology and deny deep time.

I also don't see how you can deny all the evidence of an old earth by claiming that god deliberately faked all that evidence. I think it's blasphemy to claim that god is a fraud.

Well, technically, you can discuss evolution without mentioning deep time if you're talking about recent examples of evolution, i.e., the development of new breeds of domesticated animals, new biological innovations among agricultural pests, etc.

On the other hand, when you move on to more esoteric and or touchy matters like the interrelationships of big taxa and or fossil taxa (i.e., birds vs reptiles, or ammonites, etc), then the acceptance of deep time is automatic.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,13:58   

Quote (OWKtree @ Oct. 08 2009,12:36)
To summarize, if you accept an old Earth (4+ billion years old and the accompanying geology (stratifigraphy, plate tectonics, etc.) does that require acceptance of the current theory of the evolution of life?  (And if not, what is a rational theory that explains the known evidence?)

- Kurt

When you look for what the anti-evolutionists actually believe about the the facts which we see -- fossils, radiometric dating, etc) the only ones that are relatively clear and upfront about their ideas are the YECS, in my opinion. Sure, they're wrong, but at least they're clear about what they think.


The ID-ists that I know about range from Behe's acceptance of evolution to Dembski's "I'll never tell!." The latter accepts an old age for the Earth, but is also a literalist who accepts a real Adam and Eve, but never really reveals how he thinks species arise. He now rejects "front-loading," though. I figure he really accepts that evolutionary speciation occurs, but he doesn't want to rankle the people that buy his books most.

The rest of the ID crowd also seems to be clearest about what they dislike about NeoDarwinian Theory rather than what THEY propose as mechanism. Again, deliberately, in my view.

With "Long-Age" ANTI-evolutionists...the only thing I can think of that they propose as a mechanism for new forms to arise is special creation for each one via "Divine genetic engineering" in the words of some of Hugh Ross' group. As near as I could tell, it appears to be species arising through special creation all through time, really.

I certainly haven't seen any detailed, defensible theory out of any of the Anti-Evolutionists, whether Yec, Long-Age antievo or IDist antievo.

I don't see how anyone can get around the evidence we now have in terms of an old Earth and The New Synthesis. It's simply better than anything else offered.

I'd certainly be interested to hear what info others might have read on any actual mechanisms proposed by Long-Age or ID Antievolutionists

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,14:03   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis

Well now, that sucks! Can't I even get the first half of the 15 minutes secret handshake for offering my female relatives?

Damn! You Church-Burning-Ebola-Boys are more closed-up than the famous "can't-fink-of-a-name" Ankh-Morpork troll gang*...






*who have, as a permanent member, a block of concrete on a piece of string.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,14:08   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,19:09)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,05:39)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 08 2009,03:59)
[SNIP ABUSE]

Each and every epithet perfectly appropriate.

Oh Lou I am bitterly disappointed. All that vitriol, all that abuse. You missed so much out! Here are a few choice bon mots you missed....

anti-intellectual fuckpig

clueless gibbering tosspot

mammering gudgeon (a personal favourite from ages hence)

But wait, there's more!

;-)

Louis

I was on a short homework and study break. I had a midterm in World Lit at 8 this morning.

You are forgiven your trespasses. Say three Hail RichTards and an Our Carlson, perform one act of Deadmanesque contrition with a squirrel and buy J-Dog a beer*.

Go in peace, Oh Moderator and Homonymous Biologist of Teh Future!

Louis

*J-Dog, don't ever say I don't do anything for you.

ETA: Lou, the midterm, it went superbly one presumes?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,14:12   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,20:03)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,16:36)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 08 2009,15:25)
About that promotion again, I feel like I should have gone "HARHAR, THIS IS YOU" and select a lolcat of choice.

But life sometimes brings unto us choices that are, in the words of Esope, "bloody hard"

Yes the LOLCat and HAHA THIS IS YOU would have been the standard method, and indeed would have earned you a reasonable promotion. Creative use thereof would of risen you to higher ranks.

Offering up your female friends/relatives however is suitably disgusting and has several biblical precdents. I'm afraid at this time you are simply too biblically oriented for a full promotion. You do however get a sticker for recognising the correct path which reads "I'm Mummy's Special Boy!". So well done, champ, well done.

Louis

Well now, that sucks! Can't I even get the first half of the 15 minutes secret handshake for offering my female relatives?

Damn! You Church-Burning-Ebola-Boys are more closed-up than the famous "can't-fink-of-a-name" Ankh-Morpork troll gang*...






*who have, as a permanent member, a block of concrete on a piece of string.

But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.

--------------
Bye.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2009,14:21   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 08 2009,21:12)
But you've got to really hate the Romans Creationists to be in the People's front of Judea Church Burnin' Ebola Boys.

Do you really hate them? Do you, Brian Schrodinger's Dog?

Louis

P.S. You're not the Messiah, you're a very naughty boy.

Brian: Have I got a big nose, Mum?
Brian's mother: Stop thinking about sex!
Brian: I wasn't!
Brian's mother: You're always on about it. "Will the girls like this? Will the girls like that? Is it too big? Is it too small? "

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor