freezerman2000
Living and dying in 3/4 time
- Feb 24, 2011
- 9,525
- 1,221
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
LOL -- Just fine, thank you!
Some of our Christian bretheren are going to have a lot of heresy and false teaching to explain one day.
funny many websites give definition for this "non existent" item!
University of Southern California definition:
http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/Jul_Aug2012/For the Web/General informaion on OOS/Obs_sci.pdf
also the University of Georgia Department of Geology refers to it as well:
it mentions "observational science" in the first three paragraphs:
What is Science?
should I keep finding definitions for observational science for you?
This is all ad hoc rationalization. We have the physical evidence, and that evidence indicates there was no global flood. No one looking at the geological column would conclude there was a global flood. There is no historical record of a global flood from the time period it was supposed to have occurred. There are no genetic bottlenecks that would coincide with a global flood. It did not happen.
I was wondering how you knew what date they tested it? You said "This was KNOWN from the peer reviewed literature before your creationist sources decided to date these rocks." Yet all that was given was a simplistic chart, with no dates? So how is it that you know the date of the test?
Secondly there were errors in the mass labeling of xenoliths in the study. Peer review can be wrong, especially if not followed by someone of a PHD etc specializing in the field of study of the actual article that was peer reviewed. If you find Peer review of this sort, please provide. I myself have dozens of peer review from non-phd's. Anyone can provide that info. So let me give you the nitty gritty:
"Steiner (1958) stressed that xenoliths are a
common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava,
but also noted that Battey (1949) reported the 1949
Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples
in this study contained xenoliths, including those
from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many
of these aggregates are more accurately described
as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite)
nodules (Graham et al., 1995). They are 35 mm
across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular
textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene,
and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very
occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often
rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose
material. Steiner also described much larger xenoliths
of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic
structure."
the above clip was from a PDF found here: from -Andrew A. Snelling, PhD,
https://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Cause-of-Anomalous-Potassium-Argon-Ages.pdf
I think the flood, as described in the bible, would wash away more evidence than it would leave behind. Those washed out areas would be filled in or further eroded over the next few thousand years, I would guess. I'm pretty good a figuring out mechanical things and I don't see how any kind of uniform evidence is possible from this flood.
Again, it wouldn't be uniform, but the evidence would be global at the same position in the geological column. Erosion, would be part of this evidence. One can see the effects of erosion on geological layers. You seem to think erosion leaves no traces... it does.
I think the flood, as described in the bible, would wash away more evidence than it would leave behind.
. I'm pretty good a figuring out mechanical things and I don't see how any kind of uniform evidence is possible from this flood.
But if you claim the flood was global, that evidence must remain on the earth somewhere! Moving the evidence around is not the same thing as eliminating it entirely.
I'm sure lots of evidence lays on the continental shelves.
This confuses me: Young earth creationists regularly claim the Grand Canyon as evidence of a global flood. But when asked why we don't find such vast canyons all over the world, they claim that the flood was so powerful and vast that it wiped out the evidence. Which is it?
I'm not a YEC, and I don't know if the flood carved the Grand Canyon.
1) How is a flood a "mechanical thing"?
Have you ever heard the term flood mechanics?
http://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/u...r07172343246642001.Iverson&Denlinger.FISC.PDF
2) How would alleged aptitude with "mechanical things" translate into geology skills?
Floods are more hydrology than geology.
3) Do floods leave behind the same kinds of evidence as ocean environments? Many creationists tell me that virtually any evidence of water they find anywhere is "proof of a global flood". But does all water-related evidence look the same as flood evidence?
The Genesis flood was a unique event in all of history.
For that matter, when I ask creationists to describe the kinds of evidence that is unique to floods, they go silent. And why is it so difficult to get creationists to identify which stratum or strata (which layer/s) represent Noah's flood?
I don't know. My focus is on the flood itself, not so much what was left behind as evidence.
As you can see, it is difficult to determine just what young earth creationists are claiming about the flood.
No one knows just how the flood occurred. There are some wacky ideas out there (no offense intended to fellow believers).
As I see it the biggest problem is the concept of a young earth, which is not supported biblically. Given an old age earth many things can be reasonably explained to the satisfaction of both sides.
What evidence of the flood would be present?
When people ask me what I belive, I tell them and show them why my belief is supported by Scriptures. For whatever reasons, these Christians feel motivated to come here and relentlesly attack what is written. Like the atheists, they tell the same lies and accuse God's word of being nothing more than analogy. It seems to me that if your faith is rooted in the Scriptures that you should be able to validate it with the Scriptures. Not surprisingly, none of them can.
What evidence of the flood would be present? I once read a geological survey that expressed puzzlement at the absence of large amounts of fallen rock that should have been found at the base of a certain cliff, but were nowhere to be found anywhere nearby. Strange eh?
There should be globally distributed massive sediementary layers containing many fossils, often on top of layers showing erosion. They should be in the same location in the geological column. This is what geologist looked for in the early 19th century. They did not find it.
We know what a flood looks like, even a global one, and what kind of evidence should be found. As Loudmouth and Split Rock indicated. So they did know what to look for.How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.
How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.
I am familiar with that specific example of creationist dishonesty from previous discussions..
So even Snelling himself knew that there were older rocks embedded in these rocks, and he used them anyway. Another great example of creationist dishonesty.
Thanks. I love the dead horse icon.
Actually the accusation made against me is just another lie in a string of lies. I've never accused anyone of not being a proper Christian. I challenged those who were deliberately lying about the Bible to back up what they claim in the Scriptures. Amazing, none of them ever can. As a matter of fact, I've NEVER seen a T.E. produce passages of Scriptures to support their case. The lie about Genesis stating that Adam and Eve had parents was a lie I'd never head before. The lie about Yom meaning long periods of time gets old. Although, like the word "day" it can be used to represent a time period other than 24 hours, when used in the Scriptures with "evening and morning," or "on the _th day" it means a single calendar day 100% of the time. They know this. It's not a mistake, it's an outright lie.
When they say that there is nothing in the Bible that refutes evolution it's like denying that water exists on the planet earth. Show them the verses and they do not respond. Ask for supporting Scriptures and you don't get any.
Not ever.
Not from any of them.
They claim that the the world used in Genesis means the land where the Israelites lived, but it's the same word used earlier when it mentions, "The heavens and the earth, and the same used "and the earth was without form." They know the context. They know they are deliberately lying about the context, and yet they feel compelled to continue.
When people ask me what I belive, I tell them and show them why my belief is supported by Scriptures. For whatever reasons, these Christians feel motivated to come here and relentlesly attack what is written. Like the atheists, they tell the same lies and accuse God's word of being nothing more than analogy. It seems to me that if your faith is rooted in the Scriptures that you should be able to validate it with the Scriptures. Not surprisingly, none of them can.
More lying!
Did you actually READ either of the websites you cited? Or did you know that these were NOT "University of Southern California" and "University of Georgia Department of Geology" definitions? Am I supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting you can't read? (Or simply avoided reading?)
In other words, we are once again faced with the question: dishonesty or just ignorance?
Those are NOT "university definitions." You found TWO PROFESSORS who happen to champion the beliefs you espouse and they happened to place COPIES of their articles published elsewhere concerning their personal viewpoints on their university webservers! Or do you actually expect us to believe that an individual professor's article published elsewhere and placed under his webpage on a university server is an official "science definition" of the university? [I don't think you are that naive. I think you knew exactly what you were doing.]
THANK YOU for making our point for us: that dishonest quote-mining is RAMPANT in creationist circles.
If "operational science" and "historical science" are such standard definitions, why did you have to find obscure articles (and try to fool us into thinking they were "university" definitions) instead of citing SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS?
Nobody asked whether or not you could find some professor somewhere who happens to agree with you and publishes materials which creationist websites like to cite. (The geology professor is also known for publishing and comparing creation accounts from various world religions. I think you knew of his interests in creation topics.)
You were asked to demonstrate that these are COMMONLY ACCEPTED SCIENCE DEFINITIONS found as standard terms in textbooks. You failed. Not simply because you were wrong. But because you demonstrated that we can't trust creationist quote-mining.
Be honest: Did you think you could slip this by us? Or are you so accustomed to creationist website deceptive quote-mining that you have become blind to the dishonesty?
My work is done here. I'm saving this one. What a great example of creationist copy-and-paste website ethics!
Originally Posted by gradyll: [bless and do not curse]
I really don't care whether you choose to rationalize your dishonesty as "mere" deception or "outright lies". I don't even care that you think the fact that two negative labels apply to your behavior somehow represents a contradiction of those who are shocked by your posts. But as a Christ-follower, I am HORRIFIED that someone whose position gets associated with the Savior would post such misleading claims and then quibble over some imagined ambiguity about the exact nature and label for such violations of the Ninth Commandment.
You should worry less about the alleged "moving goal posts" and instead wonder why you are wandering around out in the stadium parking lot looking for a way to get back into the game after being ejected by the officials.
But I will admit this: I was absolutely amazed that you would post such deceptive quote-mines immediately after the 350,000 "Lying for Jesus" Google results were discussed. (Were you intent on adding yet another to the total?) Poes have been known to post such outrageous examples in order to vilify Christians on Internet forums. Which side do you represent in this? I'm wondering.
Catastrophic Plate Tectonics has been known for 200 years. They just tried to change it into a uniformitarian Plate Tectonics theory and deny that it was caused by a flood. I know flood deposits when I see it and that is what this is.How could they know what to look for if they didn't know how the flood actually happened, i.e. the model and the mechanics We don't know this today.
You have no idea about the dates, especially because the graphic contains no information about it.
That is a quote mine on your part. Snelling never said there were no xenoliths, however the previous number of them has gone down so significantly however that they are no longer a factor in the "mass" dating of rocks. Only if there is a significant amount of the older rock WILL it be an issue. This is pretty straight forward rationalizing of the data.
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?