Mountains, Caves and other Terrestrial Structures

[TheBear]

We got a little off topic in the Continental Drift thread. So, I would like to discuss these terrestrial structures, and how long they took to form, in this thread.

So, are all terrestrial structures less than 10,000 years old?

 

[kaotic]

I have no idea.

 

[TheBear]

This was alluded to in another thread, but I'll make it clear.

The argument that 'since we were not there to see it, we have no clues' needs to be dismissed right here and now. No one was in space for one year to observe the earth revolving aruond the sun, yet we all, (well, at least most), accept the current model of the solar system as fact.

Let's be intellectually honest in our answers.

 

[TheBear]

Are all mountains less than 10,000 years old? Please show your work....

 

[kaotic]

Oh I think I understand.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by TheBear
Are all mountains less than 10,000 years old? Please show your work....

I don't think there is any scientific evidence of that. I havn't ever heard of anyone saying that mountians being less than 10,000 years old.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
This was alluded to in another thread, but I'll make it clear.

The argument that 'since we were not there to see it, we have no clues' needs to be dismissed right here and now. No one was in space for one year to observe the earth revolving aruond the sun, yet we all, (well, at least most), accept the current model of the solar system as fact.

Let's be intellectually honest in our answers.

Yes, let's be intellectually honest, rather than follow your strawman example above.

We can observe the earth orbiting the sun here and now. We cannot observe how the stalactites formed, we can only observe how they form now.

A proper analogy would be to ask HOW the earth entered its orbit with the sun, and how long the earth has been orbiting the sun the way it is. You cannot answer those questions without speculation anymore than you can answer the question of how long it took for stalactites to form in a cave without speculation.

So let's be intellectually honest and admit it, shall we?

 

[TheBear]

No need to address and pick apart what I said, Nick. I am merely facilitating the topic. I am setting some ground rules for this particular discussion. A "Straw Man Argument" is a misrepresentation of the opposing view. And as such, the concept of a straw man argument does not even apply in what I said. Just address the main topic here.... Terrestrial Structures.

 

[sulphur]

Again we come back to basic geological principles which are based on fact.Geologist are not people running around with hammers hitting rocks It is a science built on observed facts going back over 2000 years. Any body who doubts this should read Lucretius "on the nature of the universe".Please before you post be aware of the evidence.As for mountainsare over 10 000 years old why are there marine fossils 20 000 feet up in mountain ranges allabout the same age. Stratigraphy is a strict science also

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
A "Straw Man Argument" is a misrepresentation of the opposing view.

Here's a pro-evolution description of a straw man argument.

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/strawman.html

A Straw Man Argument is a statement you make if you want to more easily attack an opposing position. You intentionally make a silly caricature of that position, one that no one would believe, knock down that silly, unrealistic caricature, and then proclaim that the original version of the argument has been demolished. This tactic fools a lot of people.

This is one of the most unethical and cowardly of debating tactics, since you have so little confidence in your own position that you cannot even address the real position of your opponent. At the heart of the Straw Man Argument is deception.

My argument: You were not there to witness how stalactites formed, therefore you don't know what conditions were present at the time that could affect the rate of formation.

Your counter: "No one was in space for one year to observe the earth revolving aruond the sun, yet we all, (well, at least most), accept the current model of the solar system as fact."

That's a deceptive charicature of my argument, and is therefore a straw man argument.

Let's be intellectually honest here, ok? You're a Christian brother, right? Admit it, and let's move on.

 

[TheBear]

Congratulations, Nick!!

You have just made it to my ignore list!

 

[npetreley]

Wonderful, Bear. So you prefer to set ground rules in your discussions that deliberately exclude the most important factor involved -- the ability to know what the starting conditions are.

Congratulations, Bear. Your lack of intellectual honesty just made me realize how pointless it is to participate here.

 

[ocean]

Mountains are millions of years old. This is a scientific fact.

 

[ocean]

Geology proves that the earth is MUCH more than 6000 years old.

 

[sulphur]

Well lets consider mauna lau the volcano . how long have hawaiins been around what is their history .The volcano cotinues to grow.Or consider the mount reid volcanics in my back yard. They have studied by scientists from all over the world and dated ar about 600 million years. Just look for in formation on the net Mt Reid Volcanics and ore deposits

 

[TheBear]

The Santa Monica mountain range in California, is said to be relatively young. It's highest elevation is only about 3,000 feet.

"The scenic beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains is largely the result of the region's unique geologic history. The Santa Monica Mountains are young, but their structure is very complex. They are the result of tectonic interactions of the North American Plate and Pacific Plate, which induced periods of folding, faulting, and volcanism. They have been uplifted and then eroded many times over a period extending back to nearly 200 million years ago."

Source

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by ocean
Mountains are millions of years old. This is a scientific fact.

I agree with ocean.

 

[Morat]

The Bear: Don't fret about ignoring Nick. I made it to his ignore list after pointing out, one to many times, the habit he had of making a claim, having it shredded, then making it again a week later.

  Once he did it a day apart, when the other thread was still up. Made a fool of himself and didn't come back for weeks. I'd imagine that's when I made his ignore list.

  Given he's the man that claims humans grow a third set of teeth, well....

 

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by seesaw
I agree with ocean.

Why the sudden change?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Morat
The Bear: Don't fret about ignoring Nick. I made it to his ignore list after pointing out, one to many times, the habit he had of making a claim, having it shredded, then making it again a week later.

  Once he did it a day apart, when the other thread was still up. Made a fool of himself and didn't come back for weeks. I'd imagine that's when I made his ignore list.

  Given he's the man that claims humans grow a third set of teeth, well....

 

Not at all, Moart.

There is no fret on my part.

I simply have used the ignore option on him, that's all. Now, I don't see his posts, nor do I recieve PM's from him.

It works just fine for me.