RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: The Battle of Beginnings: Del Ratzsch, Anti evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,16:54   

The YECs over on Premier Christian Radio's discussion forum appear to like this:

http://www.amazon.com/Battle-....0815295

Quote
The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback)
by Delvin Lee Ratzsch  
Delvin Lee Ratzsch (Author)


and there was me thinking the YECs had lost this debate 150 years ago. Silly me.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,21:12   

I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,21:34   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

You got fleeced!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2009,21:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 06 2009,21:34)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

You got fleeced!

So true. I can get his tripe at garage sales for a dime. I draw the line at videos, though.

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

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,10:23   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

Are you going to review it at some stage Gary ? Is Ratzsch a YEC or something ?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,10:24   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 07 2009,10:23)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

Are you going to review it at some stage Gary ? Is Ratzsch a YEC or something ?

Ratzsch is IDC-aligned. Not sure of his stance on the earth's age.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,12:39   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 07 2009,08:24)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 07 2009,10:23)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

Are you going to review it at some stage Gary ? Is Ratzsch a YEC or something ?

Ratzsch is IDC-aligned. Not sure of his stance on the earth's age.

I have not read any of Ratzsch's books. I have read a few of his ID editorials/essays. I don't recall his opinion about the age of the earth.

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

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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,15:35   

Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,16:31   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,22:35)
Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

Sorry, but it has to be said:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

--------------
"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

   
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,19:39   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 07 2009,16:31)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,22:35)
Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

Sorry, but it has to be said:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

So if the earths birthday was October 22, 4004 BC how many candles does that make?

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,21:08   

If? Well, 4004 + 2009 - 1 = 6012.

Henry

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2009,22:22   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 07 2009,08:23)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 06 2009,21:12)
I got a copy on order- used for $0.62.

Are you going to review it at some stage Gary ? Is Ratzsch a YEC or something ?

I'll need to read it first, darn the luck.

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

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

   
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,09:52   

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 07 2009,19:39)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Sep. 07 2009,16:31)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,22:35)
Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

Sorry, but it has to be said:

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

So if the earths birthday was October 22, 4004 BC how many candles does that make?

Not as many as 4.55 billion !

  
silverspoon



Posts: 123
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:07   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,21:08)
If? Well, 4004 + 2009 - 1 = 6012.

Henry

Paraphrasing a long lost but not forgotten  poster here:
6,000  or 4.5 billion years, it’s hard to tell the difference with all that candle wax on the cake

--------------
Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1431
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,16:58   

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 08 2009,16:07)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,21:08)
If? Well, 4004 + 2009 - 1 = 6012.

Henry

Paraphrasing a long lost but not forgotten  poster here:
6,000  or 4.5 billion years, it’s hard to tell the difference with all that candle wax on the cake

At 4.5 billion candles, I'm guessing it would resemble a pyroclastic flow.

--------------
"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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2009,17:53   

Wax on, wax off...

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 28 2009,22:14   

Really in a man's mind they lost the battle.  To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity.  What can replace an innocent son?  Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God.

So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.

Watch this:Santa Cruz River

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,04:29   

Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,11:30   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,02:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

LOL!  I nominate Amadan's for POTW, and Scienthuse as chew-toy of the month.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,12:30   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 28 2009,22:14)
Really in a man's mind they lost the battle.  To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity.  What can replace an innocent son?  Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God.

So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.

Watch this:Santa Cruz River

That's some really bogus geological interpretation in that video, baboo.

Austin faults Darwin for not interpreting the Santa Cruz as a catastrophic glacial flood plain (a la the channeled scablands in Washington) yet Austin's evidence FOR such an interpretation consists of nothing but small "boulders" that look to be barely 25 CM across.

Compare that to the actual features of the channelled scablands, with enormous house-sized blocks lifted up and carried hundreds of miles, giant potholes formed by real boulders scouring out concavities, braided channels cut deep into the Earth.







The Santa Cruz has none of that, just a typical meandering river plain with typical spring-flood-type small boulders.

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

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:11   

Quote (sledgehammer @ Sep. 29 2009,11:30)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,02:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

LOL!  I nominate Amadan's for POTW, and Scienthuse as chew-toy of the month.

I was wondering if intelligent discourse could take place--like explaining where did Darwin's 15 foot boulder come from.  And all of the other cobbles, which Austin claims came from mountains 5 miles away.  I don't see a disconnect in his reasoning--are you able to enlighten someone or are you just used to grinding up YEC's for future digestion?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:30)
 
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 28 2009,22:14)
Really in a man's mind they lost the battle.  To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity.  What can replace an innocent son?  Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God.

So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.

Watch this:Santa Cruz River

That's some really bogus geological interpretation in that video, baboo.

Austin faults Darwin for not interpreting the Santa Cruz as a catastrophic glacial flood plain (a la the channeled scablands in Washington) yet Austin's evidence FOR such an interpretation consists of nothing but small "boulders" that look to be barely 25 CM across.

Compare that to the actual features of the channelled scablands, with enormous house-sized blocks lifted up and carried hundreds of miles, giant potholes formed by real boulders scouring out concavities, braided channels cut deep into the Earth.







The Santa Cruz has none of that, just a typical meandering river plain with typical spring-flood-type small boulders.

Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm.  One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide.  This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.

As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.

As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2113
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,21:54   

Oh boy! A fresh one.

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

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

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,22:56   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 29 2009,19:40)

Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm.  One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide.  This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.

As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.

As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.

I watched the video, and what I saw/heard was Austin going out of his way to dis Darwin, who was not a geologist, without once answering Darwin's' real point, which was that small rivers can create great wide valleys grain by grain and cobble by cobble. Except to ask the facetious question "If Darwin was wrong about this particular river valley because he didn't have satellite photos and GPS like I do, what else was he wrong about? Huh? Huh? Nyeah, Nyeah. Take that, you big dead atheist biologist."
 Do you, or do you think Austin would disagree that small rivers can carve deep, wide valleys given time?  If not, than what was the point of that whole video other than Darwin bashing?

 Cherry picking minutiae while (dis)missing the main point is a common YEC tactic.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,04:31   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 29 2009,21:40)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:30)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 28 2009,22:14)
Really in a man's mind they lost the battle.  To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity.  What can replace an innocent son?  Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God.

So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.

Watch this:Santa Cruz River

That's some really bogus geological interpretation in that video, baboo.

Austin faults Darwin for not interpreting the Santa Cruz as a catastrophic glacial flood plain (a la the channeled scablands in Washington) yet Austin's evidence FOR such an interpretation consists of nothing but small "boulders" that look to be barely 25 CM across.

Compare that to the actual features of the channelled scablands, with enormous house-sized blocks lifted up and carried hundreds of miles, giant potholes formed by real boulders scouring out concavities, braided channels cut deep into the Earth.



The Santa Cruz has none of that, just a typical meandering river plain with typical spring-flood-type small boulders.

Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm.  One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide.  This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.

As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.

As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.

I watched the video, and the section you're referring to is while Austin is on the north (basalt-strata) side of the river. At 2:09 in the video, Austin's camera cuts to the "boulder bar" on the south side of the river. The camera cuts back and forth a few times.

It is that boulder bar that is composed of cobbles and small boulders. Yes, Austin mentions Darwin talking about an erratic (a single LARGE boulder) deposited by glaciation. Big deal.

Let's say Austin is right about that bar being the product of large-scale floods. In fact, I'm quite willing to stipulate (for the sake of argument) that Austin may be right. So what?

I'd like to hear YOU say what you think it means if Darwin was wrong about the basalt strata continuing on the south side of the river and the possibility of flooding depositing that boulder bar. What do YOU say it means?

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.

---------------------
Oh, and as for Harlan Bretz' channeled scablands -- it is simply false to say that the scientific community "ignored" the topic. It was the subject of decades of controversy and papers flying back and forth in geological journals. See: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html or http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

Bretz' big mistake was in ignoring the work of Joseph T. ("JT") Pardee, who HAD nailed -- a year before Bretz published anything on the scablands --  the source of the Missoula flooding. Bretz was only at odds with the geological community because he FAILED to present that source/mechanism for the scabland origins.

 
Quote
"Bretz's original proposal lacked two key items:
1) a mechanism for producing the huge volumes of water necessary,  and
2) evidence that excluded all other possible interpretations to the satisfaction of most scientists.  While philosophical differences *may*  have been an influence, they are not sufficient to account for the  reaction Bretz received.  

In fact, with the eventual availability of more evidence, a plausible mechanism, and evidence for that specific mechanism (e.g., Pardee's work), most geologists quickly accepted Bretz's  hypothesis."


"Ignored?" Hardly. As you're going to find out, Austin and his creo-cohorts have a very malleable view of what constitutes "honesty."

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

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,18:32   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,04:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

You must be winding us up....surely ?

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,18:42   

Sorry Peter, typical bloody southerner forgetting about our dear northern cousins.

I'm deeply sorry for your plague of fluddies.



And you're very welcome to them.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,18:42   

Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 30 2009,18:32)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,04:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

You must be winding us up....surely ?

Amadan is, yes. He's pointing out that "Scienthuse" said that Darwin's SON'S death was relevant -- when it was his daughter, Annie.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,18:47   

Deadman, I think Peter was taking issue with my 'limited geography'* claim about fundies. Norn Iron has a slew of them.



* That's a Mormon joke.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:23   

Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 30 2009,18:47)
Deadman, I think Peter was taking issue with my 'limited geography'* claim about fundies. Norn Iron has a slew of them.



* That's a Mormon joke.

:( I'm slow, you should excuse me.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:32   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 07 2009,15:35)
Just wait for the Earth's next birthday, then count the candles on the cake. (But wear a fireproof suit! )

Henry

Phyllis Diller once said,

Quote
(You know you're old when) your birthday cake looks like a prairie fire

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,19:38   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 29 2009,21:40)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,12:30)
         
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 28 2009,22:14)
Really in a man's mind they lost the battle.  To a man who had lost his 10 year old son the alienation of suffering fractured his weak convictions of a deity.  What can replace an innocent son?  Against his own wife's pleading in letters he rejected revelation and the concept of God.

So as he sat on the Santa Cruz River valley and sees the river he agrees with Lyell and others before him that the random runnings of a small river had over many more years than Newton would have imagined carved out this valley.

Watch this:Santa Cruz River

That's some really bogus geological interpretation in that video, baboo.

Austin faults Darwin for not interpreting the Santa Cruz as a catastrophic glacial flood plain (a la the channeled scablands in Washington) yet Austin's evidence FOR such an interpretation consists of nothing but small "boulders" that look to be barely 25 CM across.

Compare that to the actual features of the channelled scablands, with enormous house-sized blocks lifted up and carried hundreds of miles, giant potholes formed by real boulders scouring out concavities, braided channels cut deep into the Earth.



The Santa Cruz has none of that, just a typical meandering river plain with typical spring-flood-type small boulders.

Perhaps you should actually watch the video before you make statements referring to cobbles of 25 cm.  One only need to watch the first 3 minutes to see Austin climbing the basalt cliff where there are many many boulders as tall as him and as wide.  This would make for several tons a piece and of the same composition as the mountains upriver.

As well, it is Darwin that journaled a 15 ft boulder, not Austin.

As for the scablands, they were ignored for 40 years by the unformintarian science community after in 1923 J Harlan Bretz proposed water flow as a cause for them.

I watched the video, and the section you're referring to is while Austin is on the north (basalt-strata) side of the river. At 2:09 in the video, Austin's camera cuts to the "boulder bar" on the south side of the river. The camera cuts back and forth a few times.

It is that boulder bar that is composed of cobbles and small boulders. Yes, Austin mentions Darwin talking about an erratic (a single LARGE boulder) deposited by glaciation. Big deal.

Let's say Austin is right about that bar being the product of large-scale floods. In fact, I'm quite willing to stipulate (for the sake of argument) that Austin may be right. So what?

I'd like to hear YOU say what you think it means if Darwin was wrong about the basalt strata continuing on the south side of the river and the possibility of flooding depositing that boulder bar. What do YOU say it means?

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.

---------------------
Oh, and as for Harlan Bretz' channeled scablands -- it is simply false to say that the scientific community "ignored" the topic. It was the subject of decades of controversy and papers flying back and forth in geological journals. See: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html or http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/corley2/missoula.htm

Bretz' big mistake was in ignoring the work of Joseph T. ("JT") Pardee, who HAD nailed -- a year before Bretz published anything on the scablands --  the source of the Missoula flooding. Bretz was only at odds with the geological community because he FAILED to present that source/mechanism for the scabland origins.

   
Quote
"Bretz's original proposal lacked two key items:
1) a mechanism for producing the huge volumes of water necessary,  and
2) evidence that excluded all other possible interpretations to the satisfaction of most scientists.  While philosophical differences *may*  have been an influence, they are not sufficient to account for the  reaction Bretz received.  

In fact, with the eventual availability of more evidence, a plausible mechanism, and evidence for that specific mechanism (e.g., Pardee's work), most geologists quickly accepted Bretz's  hypothesis."


"Ignored?" Hardly. As you're going to find out, Austin and his creo-cohorts have a very malleable view of what constitutes "honesty."

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.

What do I think it means? Scientifically, I think rapid water flow from a very large flood is the most likely explanation.  You have the mountains 5 miles upstream which would be the source of cobbles and boulders.  The valley is 200 ft deep and very wide, and the rocks go to the top. It is probable that the water filled the valley and possibly even widened and deepened it.   I can not say more scientifically.  

Yes I think a river can cut a canyon, but it is helped by floods, large debris, rocks and boulders in carving the canyon.  There is alot of power in a large rapid flowing volume of water or other material, such as mud.

A 150 foot deep canyon was cut in 1 to 5 days at Mt St Helens by a mud slide.


  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,20:27   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)
A 150 foot deep canyon was cut in 1 to 5 days at Mt St Helens by a mud slide.

You do must realize that different types of rocks have different rates of erosion, right?

I mean, you must be made aware that sandstone, shale and slate erode much much more slowly than freshly lain volcanic ash.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,20:40   

Quote
What do I think it means? Scientifically, I think rapid water flow from a very large flood is the most likely explanation.  You have the mountains 5 miles upstream which would be the source of cobbles and boulders.  The valley is 200 ft deep and very wide, and the rocks go to the top. It is probable that the water filled the valley and possibly even widened and deepened it.   I can not say more scientifically.  

Yes I think a river can cut a canyon, but it is helped by floods, large debris, rocks and boulders in carving the canyon.  There is alot of power in a large rapid flowing volume of water or other material, such as mud.

A 150 foot deep canyon was cut in 1 to 5 days at Mt St Helens by a mud slide.

I'll agree that it is likely that flooding created the "boulder bar." I'll agree that flooding helped create the valley as it now exists.

However, 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 ?  

--------------------
In regard to the Mt. Saint Helens/Toutle River "canyon." Yes, that was formed rapidly in loose, unconsolidated ash, muds and pumice. It was cut by mudflow and water in that loose, unconsolidated material.

It was analogous to turning a garden hose on flour, wet flour and pebbly pumice. Yes, it cut a "canyon" with slopes of perhaps 60 degrees, maximum. This is often touted by creationists as "comparable" to the Grand Canyon, for instance, when it is no such thing.

The Colorado river cut through materials as hard as schist and gneiss and consolidated sandstone like the Coconino that is even today used as building materials for flooring. Try setting a garden hose on that and seeing how long it takes to "cut" anything in it. That's hardly unconsolidated ash and muds.

Oh, and the Colorado created vertical 90-degree "slopes" cut in hundreds of meters of materials in the Grand Canyon. SOLID materials that would otherwise have slumped, collapsed IF they were loose and wetly unconsolidated -- as the "Toutle Canyon" walls did:




Let's compare that to the Grand Canyon:


No, not comparable in any way except: " water can cut through lots of things at different rates"

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

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,05:30   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,18:42)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 30 2009,18:32)
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,04:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

You must be winding us up....surely ?

Amadan is, yes. He's pointing out that "Scienthuse" said that Darwin's SON'S death was relevant -- when it was his daughter, Annie.

Yes, excuse me.  You are correct. It has been a while since I read on Darwin. My point was that Darwin lost a child and it would be easy for that to affect one's opinion toward a supposed deity if he was borderline anyway.  Also it could possibly cater to the view that the universe is final and a cold uncaring place.  

Are you willing to say that death and suffering is not a factor in many people's unbelief?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,09:48   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:30)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,18:42)
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Sep. 30 2009,18:32)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 29 2009,04:29)
Darwin was a nut case even before publishing his evil satanic work. It was inevitable that his son would die young - probably of shame and embarrassment - after his screwed-up father named him Annie. This proves that gay marriage is socialistic.

Further proof, if it were needed, that evolution is evil is in the fact that the evidence showing its falsity is visible only to true believing fundagelicals living in the USA.

You must be winding us up....surely ?

Amadan is, yes. He's pointing out that "Scienthuse" said that Darwin's SON'S death was relevant -- when it was his daughter, Annie.

Yes, excuse me.  You are correct. It has been a while since I read on Darwin. My point was that Darwin lost a child and it would be easy for that to affect one's opinion toward a supposed deity if he was borderline anyway.  Also it could possibly cater to the view that the universe is final and a cold uncaring place.  

Are you willing to say that death and suffering is not a factor in many people's unbelief?

And it was the death of Annie Darwin, as well as the idea that his father, and several of his friends, would all burn in Hell forever and ever and ever simply because they were no longer Christians, irregardless of any good works they did, that caused Charles Darwin's faith to waver, not his research, contrary to the lie that thousands upon thousands of creationists repeat time and time again.


BTW, Charles Darwin became an agnostic, not an atheist.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2009,10:26   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 01 2009,05:30)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,18:42)
quote]
Amadan is, yes. He's pointing out that "Scienthuse" said that Darwin's SON'S death was relevant -- when it was his daughter, Annie.

Yes, excuse me.  You are correct. It has been a while since I read on Darwin. My point was that Darwin lost a child and it would be easy for that to affect one's opinion toward a supposed deity if he was borderline anyway.  Also it could possibly cater to the view that the universe is final and a cold uncaring place.  

Are you willing to say that death and suffering is not a factor in many people's unbelief?

Death and suffering is a factor in some people's lack of belief, yes. However, my own experience with agnostics and atheists informs me that reason and logic were of broader importance in those cases that I know of directly.

I am also interested in any responses you might have to the questions I previously posed to you:


   
Quote
...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 ?  


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

  
  36 replies since Sep. 06 2009,16:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]