My Discovery Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps then you would be willing to clarify this:

You should have properly used the quote function. That also is not proper behavior. But this is your post where you were being rather trollish:

"Really?

Only YECs?

I didn't know that.

Maybe I should stop believing they coexisted, so as to keep your statement accurate?

Nah.

And for the record, how did birds and dinosaurs coexist?

After all, Noah sent two birds out of the Ark, which had non-avian dinosaurs on it."

You were confrontational instead of trying to understand your errors. A troll makes claims but never supports them properly. Since this is a science area of the forum proper support is science based.

 

[AV1611VET]

Since this is a science area of the forum proper support is science based.

The science section, as far as I know, is treated as a subforum of a Christian site.

You are not a plenipotentiary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The science section, as far as I know, is treated as a subforum of a Christian site.

You are not a plenipotentiary.

Yes, but it has its own rules. One cannot for example mock the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but it has its own rules. One cannot for example mock the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please note, that has not been done by atheists here. Though misguided it does appear to me that many creationists do this on a regular basis.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm no geologist, but there would probably have been intermittent floods and earthquakes, as there are today. But the breakup and motion of the plates was over geological timescales, i.e. extremely slow by human standards - perhaps a few inches per year, so I expect there would have been long periods of relative calm.

The geologists here are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong...

Yes, and I had a teacher tell me once that it was like cracking an egg real slow, the point being it wouldn't be so messy... yeah right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and I had a teacher tell me once that it was like cracking an egg real slow, the point being it wouldn't be so messy... yeah right.

A poor analogy does not refute an idea. The term "flooding" is not proper to use since the breaking up of Pangaea would have caused a very slow ingress of seawater into areas that used to be land. A flood is temporary, on the order of a years at the most. This was not temporary. We can not only measure the rates of movements of the plates today, we can also measure their rates in the past. As the Mid-Atlantic ridge opened up the magma not only gave a date to its cooling. It also recorded the direction of the magnetic field at that time. This allows for a way to measure the rates of movement for the entire sea bed.

This is a simplified illustration of what goes on:

Here is a map with false colors showing dates:

I can go into more detail if you wish.

 

[inquiring mind]

A poor analogy does not refute an idea. The term "flooding" is not proper to use since the breaking up of Pangaea would have caused a very slow ingress of seawater into areas that used to be land. A flood is temporary, on the order of a years at the most. This was not temporary. We can not only measure the rates of movements of the plates today, we can also measure their rates in the past. As the Mid-Atlantic ridge opened up the magma not only gave a date to its cooling. It also recorded the direction of the magnetic field at that time. This allows for a way to measure the rates of movement for the entire sea bed.

This is a simplified illustration of what goes on:

Here is a map with false colors showing dates:

I can go into more detail if you wish.

No thank you, but I appreciate your effort. There is just no way that I can be convinced that dynamics on such a scale could be so passive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No thank you, but I appreciate your effort. There is just no way that I can be convinced that dynamics on such a scale could be so passive.

That is likely because you have been listening to non-experts. I can show you pictures of rocks that we know were deformed and did not break. Fossils are useful for more than just relative dating. Fossils, in case you did not know, tend to be very fragile, yet there are examples of them where they have been compressed or stretched with no breaking at all. Structural geologists generally call fossils "strain markers" because that tends to be their only interest in them. And there are labs where they test sedimentary rocks under very high pressure and measure their rate of deformation. There is no conjecture of guessing in this. The evidence is very clear cut. Let me see if I can find one of my favorite pictures.

Found it:

The two trilobites are at roughly ninety degrees to each other and you can see that one was stretched and the other was compressed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is another example where they compare a trilobite that was deformed to one that was not:

 

[sjastro]

No thank you, but I appreciate your effort. There is just no way that I can be convinced that dynamics on such a scale could be so passive.

Care to explain the symmetry of the normal and reversed magnetic anomalies around the mid-ocean ridge?

 

[inquiring mind]

Here is another example where they compare a trilobite that was deformed to one that was not:

I do not question study and expertise. I do not doubt the reasoning that comes from it. But, I'm just not convinced that the conclusions drawn are a given. In other words, what you see may not be what you think you see.

 

[inquiring mind]

Care to explain the symmetry of the normal and reversed magnetic anomalies around the mid-ocean ridge?

ditto

 

[sjastro]

ditto

So in other words the argument of personal incredulity applies here.

 

[inquiring mind]

So in other words the argument of personal incredulity applies here.

As I get older I have come to realize that is a possibility.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not question study and expertise. I do not doubt the reasoning that comes from it. But, I'm just not convinced that the conclusions drawn are a given. In other words, what you see may not be what you think you see.

Then you appear to be going down the route of science denial. Science is evidence based. It is very well defined what is and what is not evidence. The presence of evidence puts the burden of proof upon those that oppose it. Your user name is "inquiring mind", that implies that you will seek out the evidence and find it. Perhaps you should learn the basics of science. Once you do that you will see that for some odd reason that creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs. In fact the phrase "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron since creationists are almost always too afraid to follow the scientific method.

There is an old joke and it appears to be very true:

What do you call a creationist that follows the scientific method?

An evolutionist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I get older I have come to realize that is a possibility.

Perhaps you should try to learn why almost all scientists accept the theory of evolution. It is a very very small percentage that do not. I always found creationists to be rather arrogant since they have the gall to try to tell God how he made the Earth. If God was the creator his creation tells quite a different story.

 

[inquiring mind]

Then you appear to be going down the route of science denial. Science is evidence based. It is very well defined what is and what is not evidence. The presence of evidence puts the burden of proof upon those that oppose it. Your user name is "inquiring mind", that implies that you will seek out the evidence and find it. Perhaps you should learn the basics of science. Once you do that you will see that for some odd reason that creationists cannot seem to find any scientific evidence for their beliefs. In fact the phrase "scientific creationism" is an oxymoron since creationists are almost always too afraid to follow the scientific method.

There is an old joke and it appears to be very true:

What do you call a creationist that follows the scientific method?

An evolutionist.

It's smaller than my user name, but its there at the bottom... Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great things, and difficult, which thou knowest not. Jeremiah 33:3

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's smaller than my user name, but its there at the bottom... Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great things, and difficult, which thou knowest not. Jeremiah 33:3

That really does not apply to this debate. Why assume that the Bible is literally true? It does not even make that mistake in talking about itself. In fact there are huge theological problems with reading Genesis literally. If one understands the Garden of Eden story it paints God as the one at fault. He also is portrayed as not being omniscient when it comes to the Noah's Ark story. Now those stories work as morality tales since morality tales are not meant to be dissected as thoroughly as one would dissect reality. In fact most Christians do not appear to take those stories literally. There is no real need to do so, you can keep your faith and accept reality.

 

[inquiring mind]

That really does not apply to this debate. Why assume that the Bible is literally true? It does not even make that mistake in talking about itself. In fact there are huge theological problems with reading Genesis literally. If one understands the Garden of Eden story it paints God as the one at fault. He also is portrayed as not being omniscient when it comes to the Noah's Ark story. Now those stories work as morality tales since morality tales are not meant to be dissected as thoroughly as one would dissect reality. In fact most Christians do not appear to take those stories literally. There is no real need to do so, you can keep your faith and accept reality.

I wasn't referring to the Bible.