Geologists (HALP)

[AintNoMonkey]

 

[AintNoMonkey]

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Seriously bob, when you see a thread about science and you think "This thread is for me, I will have a look!", realize that you're horribly mistaken and just move on.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sure this will help me pass my petrology course.

In fact, that's why I took the course to begin with: to deny all of the teachings within it and convince all the other students that all we need is Genesis and BobByers

In honor of this post, here is an equally useful (and equally FUN) montage of smilies!

In fact, Genesis does have a much much much better model on the origin of continent. However, it is not a science book, so the model is not explained explicitly. More critically, if one has no patience to religion, the person tends to reject the model BEFORE even consider it. It is not a scientific attitude. That is why the Genesis model is seldom known.

 

[flatworm]

In fact, Genesis does have a much much much better model on the origin of continent. However, it is not a science book, so the model is not explained explicitly.

How can any model that provides virtually no detail be a better model?

More critically, if one has no patience to religion, the person tends to reject the model BEFORE even consider it. It is not a scientific attitude. That is why the Genesis model is seldom known.

What is this model and what is the evidence for it?

 

[thaumaturgy]

In fact, Genesis does have a much much much better model on the origin of continent.

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:9[/BIBLE]

Wow. That's pretty impressive. I can see why it rates "3 muches" better than standard geology!

However, it is not a science book, so the model is not explained explicitly.

Actually you are half-right. It isn't a science book, but the part you dropped the ball on was "not explained explicitly". I think it far more approrpiate to say "not explained" and just leave it at that.

Genesis is a myth story virtually indistinguishable from countless other myths:

In the meantime what was heavy and opaque in the void gradually precipitated and became the earth, but it had taken an immeasurably long time before it condensed sufficiently to form solid ground. In its earliest stages, for millions and millions of years, the earth may be said to have resembled oil floating, medusa-like, upon the face of the waters. Suddenly like the sprouting up of a reed, a pair of immortals were born from its bosom. These were the Deity Umashi-Ashi-Kahibi-Hikoji-no-Mikoto (the Pleasant-Reed-Shoot-Prince-Elder-Deity) and the Deity Ame-no-Tokotachi-no-Mikoto (The Heavenly-Eternally-Standing-Deity). (Japanese Creation Myth circa 792AD,
From Genji Shibukawa: Tales from the Kojiki (SOURCE)

Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva He created and to maya-attachment gave increase.
(To a rare one was the Master's Word imparted.)
Himself He made His Ordinance operative and watched over it:
Creating continents, spheres and nether worlds, the hidden He made manifest.
(Sikh Creation myth)

More critically, if one has no patience to religion, the person tends to reject the model BEFORE even consider it.

Do you DARE reject the patent truth of the primeval sea of abzu within which the earth (ki) was created? Do you pay homage to the four primary dieties: Enki, Ninhursag, An, and Enlil? (SOURCE)

If not, why not???

Have you no patience for religion such that you reject the model before even considering it???

It is not a scientific attitude.

Indeed! Have you worshipped at the alter to Enki today? That would, of course, be the only rational scientific thing to do, would it not?

That is why the Genesis model is seldom known.

That and the fact that it is a myth story and consists of, what, a couple of lines in a myth "poem"?

I can't see why more people don't know it.

Of course, as a scientist myself, I am far more fond of this "model of continental development":

The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. -abstracted from The Prose Edda of Snorri Sturluson (SOURCE)

 

[juvenissun]

[BIBLE]Genesis 1:9[/BIBLE]

Indeed! Have you worshipped at the alter to Enki today? That would, of course, be the only rational scientific thing to do, would it not?

Yes, there are many such myths. I do not have time to study them all (it would be a nice thing to do). But at least, I studied one of them and it takes a lot of my time.

How many have you studied? None, right? Why don't you pick up one? Then you would say: which one?

Well, that is where the real problem lies. Either you don't do it at all, or you don't know which one to start. If you are trying to explore, you have to start with one.

Fortunately, I passed this hard question many years ago. I don't think you haven't even started it yet. The time is running out fast.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, that is where the real problem lies. Either you don't do it at all, or you don't know which one to start. If you are trying to explore, you have to start with one.

Why not start with the evidence instead of a creation myth? If the evidence points to a young earth, a global flood, etc. then the evidence will bear it out without needing to read a single creation myth.

Fortunately, I passed this hard question many years ago. I don't think you haven't even started it yet. The time is running out fast.

I decided long ago that reality is more important than myths. You still have time left as well.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yes, there are many such myths. I do not have time to study them all (it would be a nice thing to do). But at least, I studied one of them and it takes a lot of my time.

Remember, you don't want to "reject the model BEFORE even consider[ing] it."

That would be wholly unscientific.

How many have you studied? None, right?

What about the ones I listed, does that count? How about the Genesis account? I've studied it in that I've read it. Since it doesn't contain data or technically any "content" studying it is pretty easy.

Why don't you pick up one? Then you would say: which one?

Well, that is where the real problem lies. Either you don't do it at all, or you don't know which one to start. If you are trying to explore, you have to start with one.

So did you do that? Did you weigh and balance all creation myths before deciding that the Jewish creation myth was the TRUE one?

What was it about the few lines in Genesis that "cinched" it for you? Was it the lack of detail? The lack of Content?

Fortunately, I passed this hard question many years ago.

No doubt. And by "passed" you mean "accepted on faith", right? Not that there's much in the Genesis account to allow for "understanding" or deeper "appreciation". That would count as "content".

I don't think you haven't even started it yet. The time is running out fast.

A. I "passed" english Grammar many years ago so "double negatives" are problematic for me.

B. Time is running out the same as it was running out for the past 2000 years.

Tick tick tick!

13 years ago my grandma passed away at age 94. For most if not all of the prior 30+ years I had known her I seem to recall she was pretty sure the end of the world was coming soon.

So if that brings you comfort, maybe you should keep it to yourself. The rest of us might have a life to live that doesn't involve anticipation of the End.

[bible]Matthew 24:34[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

The time is running out fast.

Oh yes, I forgot to add:

Enki is getting annoyed. Time is running out!

 

[AintNoMonkey]

In fact, Genesis does have a much much much better model on the origin of continent. However, it is not a science book, so the model is not explained explicitly. More critically, if one has no patience to religion, the person tends to reject the model BEFORE even consider it. It is not a scientific attitude. That is why the Genesis model is seldom known.

Please summarize the Genesis model for me, using scientific data, that I may consider it for when I revise my paper.

 

[juvenissun]

Please summarize the Genesis model for me, using scientific data, that I may consider it for when I revise my paper.

You wish it were so simple.

If true, there will be no atheist. (take it back. there will still be. )

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You wish it were so simple.

If true, there will be no atheist. (take it back. there will still be. )

Wait-- there's a (according to you) great theory about continental crust differentiation in Genesis, but you won't explain it to me? And you also won't back it up with scientific evidence?

Are you trying to make a haha, or are you serious here?

 

[juvenissun]

13 years ago my grandma passed away at age 94. For most if not all of the prior 30+ years I had known her I seem to recall she was pretty sure the end of the world was coming soon.

So if that brings you comfort, maybe you should keep it to yourself. The rest of us might have a life to live that doesn't involve anticipation of the End.

[bible]Matthew 24:34[/bible]

It is off topic, but, anyway ...

Think it this way: How long did your grandma wait for the end of the world? Say 50 years.

How long did a dying Christian in A.D. 120 wait for the end of the world? About 50 years or so.

For everyone, the time of waiting is about the same. It does not matter if the total time is 2000, 3000 or 5000 years. When one's waiting time is over, then it is done and there is no more waiting. That is what does the MT 24:34 mean.

-------

I am a little bit tired of your argument. Could you say something positive (even from the atheistic point of view), instead of mocking what people said? There is only about 10% in your argument which is worthy for further consideration. And, you will win little respect by the way you respond even your information is good.

 

[juvenissun]

Wait-- there's a (according to you) great theory about continental crust differentiation in Genesis, but you won't explain it to me? And you also won't back it up with scientific evidence?

Are you trying to make a haha, or are you serious here?

I am definitely serious. One could not see the geological possibility hidden in Genesis until one has a geological background and think A LOT about what Genesis says. Even that, there is no data or anything which can be found in the Book. What it gives you is a direction of research. And, it is the most important thing in any scientific learning.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I am definitely serious. One could not see the geological possibility hidden in Genesis until one has a geological background and think A LOT about what Genesis says. Even that, there is no data or anything which can be found in the Book. What it gives you is a direction of research. And, it is the most important thing in any scientific learning.

Ok, and I'm asking you to provide evidence, in the form of a paper or other similarly reviewed and critiqued document, as to the validity/possibility/whatever of this theory. Surely SOMEBODY has taken hold of this 'direction of research', right? Pony up.

 

[Baggins]

If so, what then is the model age of the earth?

Consider the process:

Earth > collision > gathering of dust > hot moon > cold moon > rock gives age.

Yes, and............

 

[Baggins]

In fact, Genesis does have a much much much better model on the origin of continent. However, it is not a science book, so the model is not explained explicitly. More critically, if one has no patience to religion, the person tends to reject the model BEFORE even consider it. It is not a scientific attitude. That is why the Genesis model is seldom known.

Another brilliant creationist oxymoron.

Genesis explains continental growth better than science, but it isn't explicit.

OK, why don't you explain the Genesis model of continental accreation explicitly to us.

This should be fun.

 

[Baggins]

I am definitely serious. One could not see the geological possibility hidden in Genesis until one has a geological background and think A LOT about what Genesis says. Even that, there is no data or anything which can be found in the Book. What it gives you is a direction of research. And, it is the most important thing in any scientific learning.

The old - " I am extremely learned about things, but I can't explain them to you, you will have to find them out yourself" routine.

How lame. I was actually expecting you to step up to the plate here with a serious explanation of how Genesis explains the evolution of continents.

How silly of me, I think I would have more success checkingthe lyrics of Genesis the 70s prog rock group.

 

[juvenissun]

The old - " I am extremely learned about things, but I can't explain them to you, you will have to find them out yourself" routine.

How lame. I was actually expecting you to step up to the plate here with a serious explanation of how Genesis explains the evolution of continents.

How silly of me, I think I would have more success checkingthe lyrics of Genesis the 70s prog rock group.

Not a wise hope.

Even I do have something, I won't tell you. The reason is obvious.