Evolution/geology

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

OK, I’m done. I’ll try to take February off.

Phil P

Please do…maybe February will have some logic in it then

 

[rheins2000]

The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution."

HELLO? I can see why that sentence would be cut out by a creationist.

Phil P

HMMM…LETS READ THE ABOVE SENTENCE…OF WHICH NEVER DID I PURPOSEFULLY LEAVE OUT…IN FACT, I WISH I WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT SO I WOULD HAVE PUT IT IN…

DO YOU SEE THE “THEIR OVERALL INTERPRETATION” PART…

That’s juicy…Im sorry, I thought we were sticking to facts.

Of course **“the uncertainties are disturbing to evolutionists”(FROM YOUR OWN QUOTE)…**its because they cant use those methods. So their 1% and 2% accuracy ratios are from using their GRAVE assumptions and then linking them to the good ol’ GEOLOGIC COLUMN. There is no 1 and 2% accuracies in your methods. If you make HUGE FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS TO ACHIEVE THOSE PERCENTAGES(OF WHICH THE PERCENTAGES ONLY COME FROM LINKING TO THEIR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF HOW OLD THEY ARE IN THE FIRST PLACE), THEN YOU DO NOT HAVE 1 and 2% ACCURACIES…YOU HAVE 1 and 2% ACCURACIES TO WHAT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

NOT DrDino, ICR, ChristianAnswers.net, AnswersInGenesis, KolbeCenter, Carl Baugh, Henry Morris, Fred Flintstone, Duane Gish, Barney Rubble, Bam-bam or Pebbles.

At least Bam Bam and Pebbles would not grasp to the logic of, “If nothing, then matter”…and “if matter, then life”…thereby leaving them with more credibility than Dalyrimple, Faure, Dicken and Lewis…all hard core evolutionists who belive in life from nothing and start their process from matter in the Big Bang…never telling us where that matter came from. Nice proof, boys.

PhilVaz:

Further, in case you forgot, this is what Gish says about his own creationism:

“Creation. By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation…We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as Special Creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” (Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No!, page 40)

I agree with everything he says here…

Of course you do not know the scientific processes by which the universe was created…BECAUSE THEY DONT EXIST…

now read this very slowly…THAT IS HOW SCIENCE BRINGS US TO GOD CREATING THE UNIVERSE. CREATION IS ABOVE SCIENCE…AND BECAUSE MATTER CANNOT CREATE MATTER AND MATTER CANNOT CREATE LIFE, GOD MUST HAVE CREATED IT. THATS THE REASONING OF AQUINAS AND MANY OTHER SAINTS, AND THATS MY REASONING, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS QUOTE SAYS…THE QUOTE DOES NOT SAY THAT CREATION IS NOT SCIENCE. YOU NEED TO LEARN TO READ…SORRY

YOU CANNOT DISCOVER ANYTHING BY SCIENCE ABOUT THE CREATIVE PROCESS…BECAUSE IT IS ABOVE YOUR HEAD. GOD DOESNT NEED TO USE HUMAN SCIENCE TO CREATE…HE GOES WAY ABOVE HUMAN SCIENCE…THATS WHY HE CAN MAKE MATTER FROM NOTHING, AND LIFE FROM NOTHING…SCIENCE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT…(Just like evolution cant explain where matter came from)

“Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).” (Gish, letter to editor of Discover magazine, July 1981))

This depends on whether hes talking about the moment of creation(which I just explained can never be explained by science) or the resultant scientific processes…which you better believe makes the creationist view a scientific theory…refer to my earlier post, where I spelled it out such that a 6 year old could grasp it.(After the miracle of creation)…(you do know what makes a miracle a miracle, right?).

PhilVaz:

Let’s summarize what Gish says about his own creationism:

(1) We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe.

COMPLETELY AGREED!!!..I like this Guy

quote=PhilVaz We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
[/quote]

Right on!!

quote=PhilVaz Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory.

[/quote]

Well which is it?..you’re using a guy for your point that says evolution is not a theory…thats pretty weak…

And, if you wouldnt take these people out of context, or read their work in an angerous rage, I’m sure you would probably find that the claim he is making here is for the beginning processes of the universe. The point of creation cannot(4th time no, getting this yet?) be explained by science(which leads us to God and only God). The point of beginnings of evolution cannot be explained by science(which leads them to the most ridiculous stance that has ever been attributed to science…that matter created matter, and then matter created life)

I would agree after the point of beginnings, both stances then become SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, BY DEFINITION.

Your quotes argue semantics and nothing less.

 

[Orogeny]

Hey rheins, have you had a chance to research carbonates, evaporites and eolian deposits yet?

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

Hey rheins, have you had a chance to research carbonates, evaporites and eolian deposits yet?

Peace

Tim

Yes, have you?

Peace,

Greg

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Yes, have you?

Peace,

Greg

So, how do they fit into your flood model?

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

PhilVaz:

Yes, and on behalf of Rheins2000 I apologize. He should have been absolutely ignored after 1 or 2 posts. Your original post #1 raised a legitimate scientific issue to discuss.
Phil P

And on behalf of Phil, I apologize he still thinks he was once a monkey with no intelligence…and before that a sea monster, and before that, a turtle, and before that, a minnow, and before that an amoeba, and before that, dead matter, and before that, other matter, and before that…well, Phil, what were you before that?

(SING TO MUSIC) Billions and billions of transitional forms, la de da, we have(supposedly) found 12 of them, la de, da. Isn’t a problem for us, la de da. Millions of symbiotic relationships requiring fully developed species of all kinds all existing at the same moment, la, de, da,…never ever seen a species change into another, la, de, da…never created life in a lab, la, de, da…if it fits our time scale, the rate was linear, if not the rate was exponential, la de da.

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

So, how do they fit into your flood model?

Peace

Tim

Just fine, how do they fit in your model.

Oh, also, how does 300 ft. of cosmicc dust fit into your model…let me guess…reverse exponential deposition…well, how about the speed of light…let me guess, linear.

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Just fine, how do they fit in your model.

Really? I was under the impression that the flood was a one-time event. Maybe I just don’t understand your model. Could you please tell me how many times the flood waters evaporated according to your model?

Oh, also, how does 300 ft. of cosmicc dust fit into your model…let me guess…reverse exponential deposition…well, how about the speed of light…let me guess, linear.

Let’s keep focused on the rocks for a minute and then I will answer your questions even though they are unrelated to the topic of geology.

Peace

Tim

 

[rheins2000]

Guessing that this was thrown my way, so I’ll address…also, it seems to be 8 on 1 here, so Ill have to apoligize if I cant get to everything…if you think I skipped intentionally, please let me know and I will address ANYTHING on here.

Orogeny:

If you wish to believe in a young earth and that Genesis is literally true, the Church will have no argument with you.

Don’t believe Genesis is literally true…dont know where you got this.

Orogeny:

Please understand and admit that you are doing so based on your faith

As are you when you say matter created matter

Orogeny:

That being said, if you chose to argue your faith by using science, please be prepared to be challenged.

Of course, thats why we’re here

Orogeny:

Make sure you understand what science is and what it isn’t. .

Let me guess, if it supports your position, its science, if not, its not.

Orogeny:

Study the subject, making sure you research both sides, not only the side you agree with…

Funny, thats the advice I would give to you.

Orogeny:

Understand that there is a terminology in science that may make you misunderstand what is being said if you apply common usage to the words…

Examples, please

Orogeny:

There are many here with advanced educations that have spent a large amount of time studying the science that so many are willing to either ignore or villify.

There’s the evolutionist coming out again…Talking down to you like you’re an idiot, and science is best left to them…They are all smarter than you…you should just take them at their word…HAHAHA

Orogeny:

Be prepared to be called out if your post indicates either a poor understanding or misstatement of the science. .

Thats why Im calling you out.

Orogeny:

Be especially ready if you continue to post incorrect science after someone has corrected you on it…

Like transitional fossils(BILLIONS, huh?)

Orogeny:

However, please don’t try to use a misconception of science as an apologetics tool…

Science was put here by God for that reason…dont listen to people who tell you differently. They think science was man-made…that’s their mistake…Who do you think created the laws of the universe…Im guessing you disregard the doctrine of Transubstantiation…because that’s not science. Nice try Orogeny.

Orogeny:

You will drive people away from the faith. …

Thinking I was once a monkey drove me and many millions away from the faith, so here is just an un-thought out statement. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY THAT WAS STARTED IN THE LAST CENTURY AND A HALF…LOOK AT THE RESULTS. YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO DRIVE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE FAITH. DONT PUT THAT ON ME.

 

[Orogeny]

rheins2000:

Guessing that this was thrown my way, so I’ll address…also, it seems to be 8 on 1 here, so Ill have to apoligize if I cant get to everything…if you think I skipped intentionally, please let me know and I will address ANYTHING on here.

No, this quote was not for you. Thanks for answering.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

rheins2000:

Oh, also, how does 300 ft. of cosmicc dust fit into your model

It doesn’t, because it never existed. This is another one from AiG’s list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Why do you think that this argument will convince us when even AiG are against it? This AiG page has already been pointed out to you yet you are still using arguments that it does not support. You are obviously not completely up to date with the latest in Creationist thinking. More studying before posting in future please.

We are still awaiting evidence either of a Devonian sheep or of human artefacts from the Carboniferous. Without such evidence you theory is looking very unsupported.

rossum

 

[steveandersen]

rheins2000:

And on behalf of Phil, I apologize he still thinks he was once a monkey with no intelligence…

Well I would normally never think of answering for someone else but I’m sure Phil would never say that he was once a monkey.

he is however an Ape…and so sir are you

…….and before that a sea monster, and before that, a turtle, and before that, a minnow, and before that an amoeba, and before that, dead matter, and before that, other matter,

and this differs from a lump of clay how?

rheins2000:

and before that…well, Phil, what were you before that?

I imagine that Phil has always been Phil

rheins2000:

(SING TO MUSIC) Billions and billions of transitional forms, la de da, we have(supposedly) found 12 of them, la de, da.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil
Every species is a transitional species

rheins2000:

Isn’t a problem for us, la de da. Millions of symbiotic relationships requiring fully developed species of all kinds all existing at the same moment, la, de, da

Incorrect

rheins2000:

,…never ever seen a species change into another, la, de, da

Incorrect there are many observed instances of speciation

rheins2000:

…never created life in a lab, la, de, da…if it fits our time scale, the rate was linear, if not the rate was exponential, la de da.

If I may paraphrase Fulton Sheen
There are not over a hundred people…who hate the theory of Evolution. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the theory of Evolution

 

[rheins2000]

from talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_1.html: Long time may not be necessary to form the coal itself, but it is necessary to account for the context where coal is found.

Your own evolutionists mecca tells you that a long time is not necessary…If I can’t convince you, maybe they can.

Orogeny:

The formation of coal is a chemical process. chemistry.anl.gov/carbon/coal-tutorial/coalgeneral.html Clear enough for you?

HAHA…still on this…I figured you wouldn’t give it up. Apparently you’re having trouble reading…I cant make it any more clear that I already have. Everyone else, please look at our previous posts and the definition of physics…you decide for yourself…Im done with this guy on this point. You can only talk to a log for so long.

Orogeny:

Well, actually, the commonly accepted model of coal formation does account for the heat. Yours doesn’t.?

I dont know why my model would have a heat problem. Maybe you dont know the creationist model for coal formation. Temperatures between 100 and 200C create the best conditions for coalification…I’m not saying that thousands of degrees are required…only the right conditions…a worldwide flood with massive volcanic activity and massive amounts of water, where organic deposits would be quickly covered over and left to steaming and heating by those conditions, would very easily produce all of the conditions needed for coal formation. Your own sources seem to invariably submit to the realization that massive or catastrophic events are the best, or at least most likely explanation of coal formation. Your model is hard pressed to give reasoning behind such massive coal deposits as those found in Australia and other continental regions and the presence of the 3 different grades of coal would suggest different forming pressures and temperatures.

Here are two sources for you to learn the creationist viewpoint and what evidence there is for rapid coalification of massive(and it takes massive) deposition of highly organic material …not slight deposition over millions of years… and worldwide volcanic activity.

answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/forests.asp

answersingenesis.org/tj/v1/i1/noah.asp

Given the widespread presence of clay in coal,

How do you explain the absence of clay in most peat swamps(especially cold climate ones)?

How do you explain the presence of clay marker horizons dividing the coal basins in a single deposit?(Your theory relies on the clays and feldspars being washed in by floods, yet clay would not settle in the many highly acidic swamp conditions.

Orogeny:

My response is that some coals are derived from materials deposited by moving water, but most weren’t. How do you explain the coal that isn’t the result of moving water? If you say that it is because the flood, over time, became a standing body of water, then how do you explain root traces found in the sediments below the coal? Oh, yeah, how do you explain the sediment below the coal if the coal is the result of masses of animals and plant material sinking before the sediment did during the flood?
Tim

You must realize that the theory(it is very obvious that you have never even read the theory if you’re asking questions like these) does not say that coal is only the result of sinking debris. Please read the 2 links I gave you and then comment on the creationist position.

A well informed person should know both sides, don’t you think.

 

[rheins2000]

steveandersen:

he is however an Ape…and so sir are you

Please speak for yourself banana boy. I am not so quick to lower myself to ape standing, like you.

steveandersen:

and this differs from a lump of clay how?

I just cant even lower my brain function enough to answer this.

steveandersen:

Every fossil is a transitional fossil
Every species is a transitional species

My goodness, my goodness. Who is this guy? Whoever he is, he is giving you evolutionists a bad name.

That is WONDERFUL science!! That must be why evolutionists are clingly so blindly to those 12 that were mentioned in other posts…because all of them are. HAHAHAHA…thanks for that.

LEARN WHAT SCIENCE IS BEFORE YOU POST ANYMORE.

At least the guy who made the claim for the 12 was still in the science realm.

Incorrect

steveandersen:

Incorrect there are many observed instances of speciation

And you also need to look up the definitions of macro vs. micro changes before you argue a creationist. I am in need of an informed discussion, not one like this.

If you breed dogs long enough, you will create massive variations.

You can even link wolves, dogs, coyotes, etc.(and I would even give you a common ancestor of which they have all evolved from. This is all micro-evolution, of which I not only agree with, I would have to be an evolutionist to disagree with such tested and observed matters of fact

Those are all within the same kinds(baramin) (see creationist literature, of which I am quite sure you are ignorant of)

Ever seen a dog turn into a tree, a racoon turn into a human? Thanks. Thats like Creation 101. Please. Anything else?

steveandersen:

If I may paraphrase Fulton Sheen

No, please dont. Dont disgrace his memory with your drival.

 

[rheins2000]

steveandersen:

Incorrect

Oh wow, nice arguement…if this debate is that easy, I now know the responses you will accept. That will make this process much easier

MY RESPONSE: No, you are incorrect

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

You didn’t even understand that simple question, did you? OK, I’ll try again. If coal can be made by humans in a matter of minutes, why risk miners like those in West Virginia to dig it out of the ground?

No, I dont think you understand what you are saying. There are strip mines and deposits of coal all over the world. Just sitting there. Basic business sense and economic models are then required to come to the startling conclusion that:

1. Coal is in the ground to mine
2. Coal, although have being made in the laboratory, would take about 20,000 times more money to make in that laboratory, then it is to mine.

and, 3) You still cant be serious.

Orogeny:

Ignoring the basic fact that coal is made up almost exclusively of plant remains, please provide some data to back up your statement. I would like to see the densities of floating organic material versus quartz sand.

The density question is one that I may not have explained as well as I should have…it is explained in a later post where I provided the link to 2 websites. Please see that. Quartz sand is also not the only type of sediment, and massive forced depositions were covered mainly by volcanic and massive and quick burial of entire forests by huge amounts of sediment. Therefore, the moving water would play more of a part in the coal formation upon the initial start of the flood. Thereupon, the deposition of strip deposits of the organic material(million of uprooted trees, logs, water logged plants, trees, shrubs, would deposit in certain areas and be covered by agitated sediment, thereby producing other deposits)…But, please see my links(because obviously, neither of us are the top scientists in our field)

Orogeny:

Strawman.

Its not a strawman…you must tell other non-theistic evolutionists that God started your whole process…can they then call your arguement ‘strawman’?

 

[rheins2000]

Orogeny:

I will tell you how evaporites fit into “my” theory, but first let me ask you if you understand why I asked that question. What is an evaporite?

O.K., I’ll play your game…let me guess what you are trying to say…

CreationWiki: Evaporites are water-soluble, [mineral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral)[sediments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock) that result from the [evaporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation) of [saline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halite)[water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water). Most evaporites are derived from bodies of sea-water, though saline lakes may also be an important source (e.g. the [Great Salt Lake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Salt_Lake) in [Utah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah)).
Evaporites start to [precipitate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_(chemistry)) when their concentration in water reaches such a level that they can no longer exist as [solutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solute). This [supersaturation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersaturation) is usually the result of prolonged evaporation.

Evaporite minerals are geologically important because they clearly are related to the environmental conditions that existed at the time of their deposition, namely an arid environment, such as coastal plain or restricted basinal, e.g. [Death Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley), or the [Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea). Evaporites can also be easily [recrystallized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recrystallization) in laboratories in order to postulate the specific characteristics of their formation.

And I’m quite sure, the age of the bacterial spores is what you are trying to ascertain using evaporites…obviously, this has been addressed, and your assumptions and neglections are once again your downfall…

The following is an excerpt from: answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/life.asp

Although salt is detrimental to most bacteria, some such as B. marismortui can survive as spores or even flourish under saline conditions below 25% w/v.

Estimates of the average temperature of the evaporite over time and measurement of times of decimation for Bacillus marismortui within a wide range of temperatures are key parameters for improving the ‘bacterial age method’ estimate.

Unfortunately, data for B. marismortui under conditions characteristic for water inclusions in salt is not available.

An age of 350 years for the Salado deposit is within historic time and of course not realistic. There are a number of uncertainties, that must be considered.

• The small number of viable spores (three as a minimum) has hardly any statistical significance and results in a wide range of possible ages, with greater ages more probable than shorter ones.
• The D(10) of B. marismortui under conditions representative of water inclusions is unknown and needs to be established independently.
• The times of decimation for different species might vary by one order of magnitude (Table 1).
• A temperature change of 25°C has an effect of two orders of magnitude on the time of decimation (Fig. 1).
• An average evaporite temperature at or below 0°C over time is highly improbable.
• *An average temperature above 20°C might be more realistic and results in shorter D(10) times and lower ages. *

 

[rheins2000]

O.K., I’m going bowling, and this has become very boring and full of the same drival…obviously, I have, or can find a reply to any proof you think you have for evolution…there are many scientists who have looked into everything you people have put to me…Since its 7 on 1, it would take me the rest of my life to debate you all…I am very busy…also there are many things that you just cannot explain…especially to some people…so I have other things to do. Thank you all for your time.

If anyone really wants to learn…and not be indocrinated…look at both sides of the issue…The creationist side, of which many have never even heard of, is best put forth by these websites:

creationism.org
nwcreation.net
www.icr.org
www.answersingenesis.org
and the creationWiki site.

You can find everything Im saying at these sites, as well as many others.

As much as evolutionists hate to say, there is another side to this debate. Both sides have scientists that are a lot smarter than me or anyone else who has posted here.

Decide for yourself, and leave yourself open, as I have(countless times telling you that noone really knows, and that evolution, although unlikely, may in fact be true), and as most every evolutionist doesn’t(mostly because none of them believe in God).
And I dont ridicule the theistic evolutionist arguement, but I will ridicule forever, the narrow mainstream view of evolution(matter and life from nothing) all day

God Bless.,

Greg

P.S. If I have some other free time, I will get back to your posts. (If I want to slam my head into the wall some more_:banghead:

 

[rheins2000]

rossum:

It doesn’t, because it never existed. This is another one from AiG’s list of Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Why do you think that this argument will convince us when even AiG are against it? This AiG page has already been pointed out to you yet you are still using arguments that it does not support. You are obviously not completely up to date with the latest in Creationist thinking. More studying before posting in future please.

O.K. 1 more…I didnt see this one…

Time to read before you post again…and again…and again

More studying would be needed on your part to realize that that page also contains arguements that arent the strongest ones, but still leave problems to the evolutionist theory.

Its not like I refuted the validity of the archaeopteryx fossil.(but it is not a so called missing link…so dont think im conceding this here…just mentioning it as point of fact)

Creationists are not against it…it is just discredited by evolutionists…as are all of their proofs by creationists…here is some more info on it…unlike you seem to have…

answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp

My point was only that, when you want to assume a linear extrapolation you do so(dating, speed of light), and when a linear time frame doesnt fit into your model…you use an exponential rate(cosmic dust, atmosphere, sun eating the earth a million years ago)…just like Creationists do for the speed of light and others…

ONCE AGAIN YOU DISTORT THE TRUTH