Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is 'creation science' an actual term now? How did I miss that one?
Except that, of course, they are. You are alleging that the sedimentary rock layers we observe were laid down near simultaneously. I am pointing out that it is an odd thing for deserts and oceans to exist at the same time - much like gravity-defying dinosaurs.
How much rock is above the picture in question? Why is that important? Well, a weird property of mud is that it gets squished when weight is applied. If you are honestly saying that bent rock layers were not solid when they were bent then could you please explain why the bottom layers of formations like this even exist given the massive weight of the layers above them? Do the lower layers of these formations show signs of being squished? If so, where?
Also, you may have notice that these rocks have been uplifted to the point of some of the layers being vertical, just like the strata those dinosaur tracks I showed you earlier were in.
Finally, I'm really curious as to how your whole "layers were laid down as soft mud" model accounts for angular unconformities like this:
Please understand that this thread is not intended to discuss whether creation science is correct or not. I started it solely for the purpose of discussing whether creation science uses the same data as mainstream science. It has been my experience with what I have read from the creation science literature it is not using the same data, rather no data at best a variation of the data rather than the "same data".
Except that, of course, they are. You are alleging that the sedimentary rock layers we observe were laid down near simultaneously. I am pointing out that it is an odd thing for deserts and oceans to exist at the same time - much like gravity-defying dinosaurs.How much rock is above the picture in question? Why is that important? Well, a weird property of mud is that it gets squished when weight is applied. If you are honestly saying that bent rock layers were not solid when they were bent then could you please explain why the bottom layers of formations like this even exist given the massive weight of the layers above them? Do the lower layers of these formations show signs of being squished? If so, where?Also, you may have notice that these rocks have been uplifted to the point of some of the layers being vertical, just like the strata those dinosaur tracks I showed you earlier were in. Finally, I'm really curious as to how your whole "layers were laid down as soft mud" model accounts for angular unconformities like this:
I take your point. My intent is merely to point out that creation science is clearly not using the same data - they are only picking and choosing the bits and pieces that they like. For example, creation science is clearly not taking into account huge geological formations that show rock bending or the numerous uplifted formations that show vertical dinosaur tracks. They are, instead, using a few pictures; some quote mines; and a dash of confirmation bias.
From your source:
"During about the last 20 million years of our formation, Earth has settled into a pattern of switching magnetic poles about every 200,000 to 300,000 years…"Thank you for conceding the point that what we know about the Earth's magnetic field does not support a young earth as your initial post implied.
Please understand that this thread is not intended to discuss whether creation science is correct or not. I started it solely for the purpose of discussing whether creation science uses the same data as mainstream science. It has been my experience with what I have read from the creation science literature it is not using the same data, rather no data at best a variation of the data rather than the "same data".
Perhaps you came to that conclusion because I don't buy much of the science fiction
thrown at the wall to see what sticks. But I don't support the young earth conclusion.
But rick doesn't feel graphs are drawn from data, so he's a different kind of researcher.
You started out wanting to only look at a cherry picked slice of the data showing that earth'so magnetic field was weakening.
I did not support that position. The source did.
There are a variety of events that occur at different times in various time frames.
One event may occur within sight of a different from a different time frame.
"Squishing" of layers would the the result of uneven forces.
Sigh. . .let's go through this scenario again. You are claiming that bent sedimentary layers were laid down quickly and were bent while still soft.
That's one explanation. All past events are guesswork.
It doesn't matter the source.
I mean. . .okay. . .but you do realize that the sources you now say "don't matter" are the sources that you provided right?
I had missed this thread! I am giving a lecture tomorrow at Cal State University, Fullerton on "Geological Features of Great Age, and the Frauds of Young Earth Creationism."
I could have cited so many of the web links given by the local YEC "SkyWriting."
Oh well.... next time.
So you didn't try looking first? Odd style of research Rick.
Just a "challenge from a position of intentional ignorance"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?