Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[MoonLancer]

Oh your going to love this.

http://environmentalchristian.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/the-sliding-rocks-of-racetrack-playa/

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh your going to love this.

http://environmentalchristian.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/the-sliding-rocks-of-racetrack-playa/

All I have to say is this last point is bunk:

Perhaps this story will remain more interesting if the real answer is never discovered!

No. Just no. Understanding is always more interesting than lack of understanding. And besides, it's not as if there's a dearth of things we don't understand.

P.S.
Your = possessive.
You're = you are.

 

[juvenissun]

Their are, you have to look hard, but they are their. honestly it looks like their might be some photoshop done, or just odd lighting. whatever the case, their are cracks if you look.

Edit

I enhanced the image levels and made an enlargement. No other doctoring was done to this photo.

OK, thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry, MoonLancer, but the misuse of these particular words just gets a bit on my nerves. The correct word to use in your post was "there", not "their" (at each spot).

There: location.
Their: possessive (plural/gender neutral of his/her)
They're: they are.

Obviously you are not in the teaching job. If so, you should be used to this type of new language.

 

[juvenissun]

So what if it is? It's a VERY, VERY small part of the cycle.
Are you under the impression that plate tectonics is dependent on volcanic eruptions? That it takes volcanism in order for plates to move? If so, you've got the cause and effect backward.


???????????????????


Gee, they don't have wind erosion and do not have plate tectonics.. If we got some enormous fans big enough to create a wind, suppose we could initiate plate tectonics there?

To your benefit, if you do not understand, then humble yourself and start to ask some basic questions. One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.

 

[Chalnoth]

Obviously you are not in the teaching job. If so, you should be used to this type of new language.

While languages do change and evolve over time, I don't believe that the definitions of there/their/they're/your/you're are considered to have changed.

To your benefit, if you do not understand, then humble yourself and start to ask some basic questions. One of the purpose for me to hang around here is to educate.

How delightfully condescending of you! Why don't you explain yourself, as we have been continually asking of you? All you ever do is present bald assertions, and then, when asked for your reasoning, if you don't ignore the request altogether you merely repeat the same assertions all over again! Come, now, if this is your idea of "teaching", you're doing a horrific job. Explain your reasoning for once.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Indeed. If only. However, I still object to the idea that this has anything to do with the hydrologic cycle, except in a very peripheral manner.

I am tempted to agree. I am still unsure about this hypothesis of the role of water. And, as I said, usually the hydrologic cycle as it was taught to me and as I taught it later when I taught geology usually didn't get into magmatic water or "water of hydration" in minerals.

I am still quite curious about the need for water to embrittle boundaries.

Water may well be necessary for plate tectonics, but I don't see why a hydrological cycle would be necessary.

That's kind of where I'm at right now. Water exists outside of the usual "solar-geothermal" water cycle seen on earth. It exists outside of the 3-phase cycle we experience.

This may be a case of "classification" of what the phrase "hydrologic cycle" means on a relatively pedantic level. If one wishes to take the entire balance of water in all forms on a planet then the argument could be made that indeed Mars has a "hydrologic cycle" which is essentially just frozen water in the ground and only about 0.03% water vapor in the atmosphere (Linky)

Even Venus' atmosphere contains small amounts of water (Linky 2)

Obviously the amounts of quite low and certainly no liquid water at the surface anymore.

So I'm still puzzling this out. I will definitely have to look up the articles and learn more about this.

This is precisely why I wish Juvenissun would support his claims in detail. Even if he's onto something he tends to be too opaque to actually learn anything from. So I end up being relatively frustrated by his posts and his claims to being involved in education.

That is, if the planet is frozen, so that no liquid water flows, but there is lots of water in the mantle and lower crust, might not the same basic effect be achieved?

That is precisely my current question around this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here we go --- another thread reduced to pure science --- time to take my technoclaustrophobic hide elsewhere.

 

[Chalnoth]

This is precisely why I wish Juvenissun would support his claims in detail. Even if he's onto something he tends to be too opaque to actually learn anything from. So I end up being relatively frustrated by his posts and his claims to being involved in education.

Me, I'm more scared for his students. Having a teacher that just tries to ram facts down his students throats, with no argument, no supporting evidence? No understanding, just random assertions? If I ever have children, I would pull them out of that class in an instant if I found their teacher taught like that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here we go --- another thread reduced to pure science --- time to take my technoclaustrophobic hide elsewhere.

AV, you are able to, with just one sentence make my day!

What, exactly, do you think the whole "Creation & Evolution" debate is about????

Why on earth do you post anything if the facts are the last thing that you want to talk about!

In the present case we are actually attempting to better understand one of your "fellow travelers" points!

My gosh! I am fascinated that you post in the Crevo forum and when the science upon which all of this stuff is presented you post something like this!

What, exactly, do you think the debate should be based on?

Your interpretation of the Bible as the only one? Do you think Creationism is advanced merely by unilateral declaration and the only person whose voice should be heard is yours???

Face it, you aren't just "technophobic", you are "debate-o-phobic"!

 

[AV1611VET]

Face it, you aren't just "technophobic", you are "debate-o-phobic"!

That's techno - claustro - phobic.

As in --- when there is more science than Truth --- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's techno - claustro - phobic.

As in --- when there is more science than Truth --- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.

That stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling? That's what it feels like when you just begin to realize that you might be wrong. You should learn to embrace it. After all, recognizing when you're wrong is the only way you can stop being wrong. Sure, it feels uncomfortable to be wrong. And even embarrassing. But isn't it better to be right than simply think you're right?

 

[AV1611VET]

That stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling? That's what it feels like when you just begin to realize that you might be wrong. You should learn to embrace it. After all, recognizing when you're wrong is the only way you can stop being wrong. Sure, it feels uncomfortable to be wrong. And even embarrassing. But isn't it better to be right than simply think you're right?

How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?

 

[Athrond]

How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?

By pointing out the things that God supposedly did, which science shows he didn't. Then guiding the person in question to the realm of the non-litteral biblical interpretation.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As in --- when there is more science than Truth

And who decides what is "TRUTH"? You? Why would I believe you? You would gladly run away from half of the debate!

For you "Truth" is only what you decree it to be!

--- I start to get that stuffy the-room-is-closing-in-on-me feeling; and it's time for me to go to pasture.

I know you never get the point, but I will reiterate it just in case some day you do: how do you convince me that your truth is THE TRUTH?

That's the whole point!

If you unilaterally ignore half of the entire debate you are imposing a massive bias.

You are perfectly free to believe as you wish. It is your faith. It is fine for you. For some of us, we wish to see more sides than just our own.

That isn't for everyone, clearly it isn't for you.

Again, no one wants to remove your faith from you, clearly you derive "strength" in your faith by ignoring that which doesn't directly support your faith. And that's fine.

But please, do be careful when telling others what "Truth" is, if all you have is your version of it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

How do you convince someone they are wrong about believing something God said He did [or didn't do], using only science in the conversation?

Why can't God allow "science" to support the claims his followers make about what he said or did?

Does God have as much difficulty with science as some of his followers do? Did God just take all "humanities" classes at "God College"?

 

[juvenissun]

While languages do change and evolve over time, I don't believe that the definitions of there/their/they're/your/you're are considered to have changed.

How delightfully condescending of you! Why don't you explain yourself, as we have been continually asking of you? All you ever do is present bald assertions, and then, when asked for your reasoning, if you don't ignore the request altogether you merely repeat the same assertions all over again! Come, now, if this is your idea of "teaching", you're doing a horrific job. Explain your reasoning for once.

Alright, you obviously do not consider my answers provided to you as answers. If so, how did the conversation continue? Exactly because of this attitude, I will NOT provide you any of my comment until the question is specific. A good education is a two-way communication after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

For you "Truth" is only what you decree it to be!

As long as you guys keep thinking this, you're not going to believe a word I say. "My Truth" is "Your Truth" as well.

I hate it when I say the Flood happened --- and someone comes back with --- that's your interpretation.

Should I start saying, "I think the Flood happened because the Bible says it, and I have faith in the Bible"?

It's just so much easier to say, "The Flood happened," than it is to be so loquacious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why can't God allow "science" to support the claims his followers make about what he said or did?

Because science is currently hostile [but obedient] to God, and in no way represents the state of the universe 6100 years ago in Genesis 1 --- not even close.

Does God have as much difficulty with science as some of his followers do?

I would imagine that, to God, science is a nuisance --- and soon to be removed out of the way.

Did God just take all "humanities" classes at "God College"?

No --- Lucifer did --- and thought he could subvert his Creator with it.

 

[juvenissun]

You know, juvenissun, you could stand to explain yourself for once. I asked for you to explain how the water cycle has an effect upon plate tectonics. I did not ask for you to just repeat the assertion all over again.

You asked me, who could I ask to?
Do you think this particular question could be answered by one or two posts? You are a physicist. Count yourself lucky that I did not try to ask you for an answer.

It is a plausible hypothesis. And any hypothesis should be evaluated before one ever dives into it to look for any mechanism. There are thousands of literatures that addressed this problem. But there is no conclusion so far.

And you want me to give you an answer? Consider yourself a qualified Ph.D. please.

-------

What if I simply say that water is need for lubrication? How would you respond? Is that a good explanation? I bet you have no idea on what is the next question to ask.