Dr. Dino

[Arikay]

Um, but scientists use evidence to back up their assumptions (that are called hypothesis)

They didnt use any evidence to back up their claims.

Again, do you realize the amount of energy it would take to move the tectonic plates like the creationist hypothesis says happen?

Today at 11:46 PM mjiracek said this in Post #80

ok thats a nice assumption about muontains but it s not the worst assumtion ive ver seen...ok any time science tries to explain the past it has to use assumptions since no one was there to test it or observe...ok this is my last post for the night

 

[euphoric]

This thread has definitely been my moment of Zen for the day.

mjiracek-

Simply trading links to other websites is not a debate.  I think you'll get a much better response if you present your own thoughts in your own words and use links to support your point.  You are unlikely to get a meaningful discussion going if you simply fire off a bunch of links.  Stating your own opinions also gives others some assurance that you understand the concepts involved in these discussions.  Why would anyone bother responding in detail or put time and effort into responding to someone who's going to reply with a quick dismissal and another link? 

So to sum up, much more productive to make your point and then use links as support rather than simply throwing them up.

-brett

 

[JohnR7]

I think you guys do not want to admit that you really like Dr Dino, or at least you love to hate him. The guy really is funny, even if you do not agree with everything he says. He is very entertaining.

 

[Arikay]

I agree, his claims are very funny.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The problem here is that many of these issues have already been addressed on this forum--some within the past week, some within the past twelve hours. It would be nice if people took the time to read other threads before posting already refuted "evidence" such as:

1. Marine fauna on some mountains.

2. Mt. St. Helens imitating the Grand Canyon even though the two are NOTHING alike, geologically speaking. The only people who claim they are are those trying desperately to defend a scriptural interpretation from an angle of ignorance of a subject--in this case geology. It might do you well to actually read an introductory geology text instead of looking only at those websites that tell you what you want to hear.

3. Sedimentary rocks are not all formed by water. Some are formed by wind (such as lithified desert sand), and some are accumulations of clasts due to gravity. Much of the sedimentary record is formed by water; however, it is not all the same type of water. There are freshwater deposits from lakes, deposits from rivers, and marine fluids that each have a different chemistry. Furthermore, ones deposited by marine fluids can either be sandstones or a chemical or biochemical precipitate which would be greatly interfered with by a global flooding event. You are assuming that all rocks form because water pushes sediment somewhere and that is clearly not the case.

4. As Arikay pointed out already, groundwater reservoirs do not contain more water than there is on Earth. Perhaps more than where the groundwater tables outcrop at the surface in terms of lakes and rivers, but the oceans are quite largeand deep and contain a large amount of Earth's water.

5. There is a debate that has yet to take off at the "Geological Sciences v. YEC/Flood Geology" thread that has already been linked a couple of times. The argument about the Grand Canyon is on topic there. There is also a thread linked in the opening post that illustrates 12 (out of many) features that could not have occured in a young earth/global flood scenario. NO creationist has been able to answer them.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:46 AM mjiracek said this in Post #80

ok any time science tries to explain the past it has to use assumptions since no one was there to test it or observe...ok this is my last post for the night

Say you come home one night and notice that the kitchen clock reads 41 minutes slow.  You check the other clocks in your house and they also read 41 minutes slow.  You look at your computer, that you had left on with an open file on it, and find that it is now off.

Can you or can you not conclude that your electrical power was interrupted for 41 minutes during your absence?  You weren't there to observe it or test the electrical circuits.

So, what assumptions are you making?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:39 AM mjiracek said this in Post #30

but please provide one concrete scientific example of something wrong with creation and we can discuss it

Not creation, but creationism.  Creation is a theological statement that God created.  Creationism is a specific how God created.

OK, let's start with the global Flood.

I went on to criticize the flood geology of Whitcomb and Morris, introducing some still valid geological arguments that had not previously appeared in discussions of the deluge.
1. I argued that known rates of heat flow from bodies of crystallizing magma pose problems for those who contend that all fossil-bearing rocks were laid down during the single year of the biblical flood. On the New Jersey side of the Hudson River opposite Manhattan, there is a geological formation known as the Palisades sill, a thick sheet of rock of igneous origin that intruded into red sandstones and shales, Flood geologists of the Whitcomb-Morris school hold that the sand-stones and shales were laid down during the course of the flood, and hence they would logically have to assert that the magma was injected into this material during the course of the flood, cooled, hardened, tilted, and eroded before the other flood sediments settled atop it. But this would not have been possible. We know on the basis of heat flow considerations and the thickness of the sill that it would have taken several hundred years to cool and crystallize in the way it now appears. Indeed, many other much larger igneous rock bodies would have re-quired thousands to hundreds of thousands of years to lose their heat in order to crystallize. Flood geologists have made little attempt to refute this line of evidence.
2.  Radiometric dating of igneous formations of the sort men-tioned above - formations that according to the Whitcomb-Morris theory must have been produced within the space of a single year -suggest that they are in fact millions of years old. These figures are consistent with ages predicted on the basis of stratigraphical relation-ships with the intruded rocks. Similar examples can be multiplied many times over
3. The phenomena of metamorphism also pose problems for flood geology. In some localities, fossils are found in rocks that also bear evidence of having undergone significant changes (metamorphism) as a result of having been exposed to very high temperatures and pressures. The problem for flood geologists is to show how a sedimen-tary rock, which they contend was formed at the surface of the earth during the course of the flood, could have been buried and heated fast enough to metamorphose. Both heat flow theory and known rates of chemical reactions indicate that such rocks could not possibly have undergone the observed metamorphism within a single year
4. A wealth of evidence associated with modern discoveries about continental drift and sea floor spreading indicate that various kinds of rocks - including varieties that the flood geologists maintain were formed during the course of the flood - must have been formed both before and after the separation of continents. If the flood geologists are right, this would imply that the continents must have been drifting apart substantially during the course of the flood. But thousands of miles of continental drift within the space of a few months is completely inconsistent with any known rates of drift.
I concluded the book with a look at Scripture, arguing that the biblical data (Gen. 2 in particular) suggest that pre-flood geography was fundamentally the same as post-flood geography which precludes the possibility of a global deluge involving a wholesale reorganization of terrestrial surface features. I also affirmed my belief that the biblical flood was in fact a historical event and not merely myth or legend. It was my intent to show how Christians could endorse the idea of a historical flood without having to commit themselves to a flood geology theory that is thoroughly in conflict with the data of creation. Davis A Young, The Biblical Flood, Pp 273-274.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:29 AM mjiracek said this in Post #43

also it said the fountains of the deep came forth and the waters of heaven came down. so there were two sources of water. not one or the other. also the amount of ground water in the world far surpasses that of surface water and if that came forth in one torretial period it would be plenty to cover the earth along with the help of heavey rains

The ground water is in the pores of the existing matter of the earth.  Why and how would it come "pouring out"?  That would leave vacuum behind in the pores, which of course would pull the water right back in. 

Now, where in the atmosphere is there enough water vapor to get enough rain to cover Mt. Everest? That's 30,000 feet of water all over the earth.  If you got that water by importing it to the earth from some "vapor canopy", then where did it go?  Remember, we have maps of the interior of the earth from earthquake waves, and there are no huge reservoirs of water there.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:38 AM mjiracek said this in Post #45

a good book to read on the flood is the genesis record written by henry morris. who is a doctor in hydraulic engineering. so he would know about floods and water patterns than most right? he also studied geology and is well aware of the pyshical sciences which is what we are discussing right?

Morris never studied geology.  Nor has he ever done geological field work.  The Genesis Flood (I have a copy) is nothing but out-of-context quotes from real geologists.

The Flood as a world-wide event that caused geological features was falsified by 1831.  In that year, Reverend Adam Sedgwick retired as President of the Royal Geological Society. He had advocated the Flood in earlier writings.  In his farewell address he stated:
"Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. ...

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood.  For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits.  In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths."

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:20 AM mjiracek said this in Post #69

what about the beginnings of the earth...what do you belive on that?

It's not what we "believe", but what the data  shows.

This should prove a good resource for you to pursue:
http://www.gpc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102.htm

http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/GEODEPT/COURSES/geochemistry/moon_scn.htm

"As described above, long-standing ideas about the formation of the inner planets are uniformatarian in nature. The early solar nebula was shaped like a disk and contained gas and dust. The dust gradually clumped together to make pebbles, the pebbles clumped to make boulders, the boulders clumped to form asteroid bodies, and the asteroid bodies accreted by gravity and collision to form the planets:


Dust of the early solar nebula.
A great many pebbles.
Zillions of boulders.
Trillions of asteroids.
Four inner planets. This idea holds that the planets basically formed from the accumulation of a "rain" of fairly small boulder to asteroid size fragments. Recent computer models and other evidence suggest a somewhat different course of events. The beginning is the same, with tiny particles gradually clumping together to form larger particles. The difference is that, as the growth of the larger bodies is primarily by the collision of other large bodies:


Dust of the early solar nebula.
A great many pebbles.
Zillions of boulders.
Trillions of asteroids.
Thousands of planetesimals.
Dozens of protoplanets.
Four inner planets. This idea holds that the later accretion events in the formation of the inner planets involved increasingly large collisions, finally involving mammoth collisions of planet-sized bodies. The large, random collisions involved in the last stages of planetary accretion can explain many of the inner planet anomalies pointed out above:


Mercury may have its proportionally large core because half of its mantle may have been blown away by one or more giant impacts. However, where the silicate debris went is a problem for this concept.
Venus may have its slow, retrograde spin because its last big collision may have, by chance, almost eliminated Venus's spin.
Earth's moon and the large angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system may have been caused by an oblique giant impact on the proto-Earth. This impact, by chance, put enough material into orbit to crate our moon.
Although Mars has no dramatic anomalies, the geology of Mars is asymmetric, which may have been instigated by a large late collision. References and further reading

Ahrens, T.J., 1994, The origin of the Earth. Physics Today, August, p. 38-45.

Meyer, Charles, 1987, The Lunar Petrographic Thin Section Set. NASA, Curatorial Branch Publication No. 76, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 77058, 61 p.

Nozette, Stuart, et al., 1994, The Clementine mission to the Moon: scientific overview. Science, v. 166, p. 1835-1839. Also see several related articles in the same issue.

Stevenson, D.J., 1987, Origin of the Moon-the collision hypothesis. P. 271-315, in Wetherill, G.W., editor, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 15, Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 614 p.

Taylor, S.R., 1987, The origin of the Moon. American Scientist, v..75, p. 468-477.

Taylor, S.R., 1994, The scientific legacy of Apollo. Scientific American, v. 271, no. 1, p, 40-47. Also see responses to this article in: Letters, A misbegotten Moon, Scientific American, v. 271, no. 6, p. 8.

Warren, P.H., 1985, The magma ocean concept and lunar evolution. P. 201-240, in Wetherill, G.W., editor, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 13, Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 443 p."