The science of creationism: where is it?

anagnostic · Jul 22, 2009

juvenissun said:
To me, a 10 m.y. old earth or even a 100 m.y. old earth is still a young earth.
Besides, we do not know what does a "million years" really mean.

Weren't you claiming some expertise in geology before?

The debate is about the difference between a time scale of around 10,000 years and around 4.5 billion years, not about defining terms like 'young' or 'million years', either of which I have no problem with at all.

10,000 years is young, 4.5 billion years is old.

A million years is just a multiple of some other number of years- it is no more or less meaningful than a thousand years. You can pack a million centicubes in a cubic metre - not such a big number, really. Are you suggesting science can't calculate time meaningfully, just because we don't have historical records that old?

Alunyel · Jul 22, 2009

juvenissun said:
To me, a 10 m.y. old earth or even a 100 m.y. old earth is still a young earth.
Besides, we do not know what does a "million years" really mean.

Please tell me I misinterpreted that post.

Do you genuinely not know that a million years is 1,000,000 full Earth orbits of the Sun?

dad · Jul 22, 2009

MoonLancer said:
that's fine if god was measurable or observable, but its not, so your just adding unfalsifiable junk.

To those that use a meaqsure of physical only, the spiritual is out of bounds. To the rest of us, it is felt, understood, historical, known, and believed.

We can't shoo Him away because you can't see Him!

anagnostic · Jul 22, 2009

dad said:
To those that use a measure of physical only, the spiritual is out of bounds. To the rest of us, it is felt, understood, historical, known, and believed.

We can't shoo Him away because you can't see Him!

I'll go along with everything there except 'known' and 'historical'.

Knowing a person (or personal god) isn't the same as knowing a 'fact' like the existence of Adam and Eve.

If you mean the Bible is historical, this cannot be proven. It is useful in helping understand the history of the Middle East in the Bronze Age, but historians can only accept written accounts for what they are - evidence, not proof.

paltoall · Jul 22, 2009

dad said:
To those that use a meaqsure of physical only, the spiritual is out of bounds. To the rest of us, it is felt, understood, historical, known, and believed.

We can't shoo Him away because you can't see Him!

So where is the spiritual? and how come you can feel it if it's not physical?
and it's very easy to shoo him away, all you need do is think about something else and he's gone.

Hespera · Jul 22, 2009

juvenissun said:
Landform denudation does not work as you imagined. It does not erode one layer at a time.

As far as the volcanic plug, I did not read anything about it. But I guess it does not take more time than the formation of an incised meander. Volcanic rock usually deteriorated much faster.

Back to the OP. Studies of all these geologic features are certainly within the domain of creation science. You tell me why not.

Good arguments!

First, claim the other person doesnt understand.

Then make a broad general statement "doesnt erode one layer at a time". could be true, might not, depends.

Now we get a real term! "Incised meander". But how deeply incised thru what type of rock by what volume of water..without that kind of info, comments about how long it would take are meaningless.

Volcanic plug? Maybe. Its an igneous intrusion, does someone here KNOW its a volcanic plug? Or just took a glance at it and decided.

Volcanic rock "deteriorated" faster... than what? Unconsolidated sandstone?
Which volcanic rock? Ash, welded tuff, basalt? The statement is nonsense.

I thought someone here was supposed to be a "geologist"? "Creation petrologist"?

Oh, that would be "deteriorates" not "deteriorated". Take an English class.
The word anyway would be "weathers" not "deteriorated". Take a geology class for that.

Anyhow, what we get here is a couple of semi-meaningless broad generalizations, a couple of unsupportable statements, then a challenge to prove that god didnt do it.

Later we learn that nobody knows what a million years is. I wonder what is the cut off number. We know what a year is dont we? Ten? 627 years? What is it that happens at a higher number I wonder. When we get to say, 111276 years, we still know what it is, but at 111277 it starts to get strange and by 111302, nobody knows what it is any more?

Debate is good fun but debating against nonsense isnt debate and it isnt fun.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

biggles53 said:
Yes, indeed it is. Chromosome fusion is quite common in nature. It is well recorded in both the plant and animal kingdoms.

Much of the work done with commercial plants has seen new species arise as a result of chromosome fusion.

Huh? I thought your argument was over what we had in COMMON...ie, an ancestor!

Sorry to disappoint you...I guess this now makes you a supporter of evolutionary theory and common ancestry...right?

Oh, by the way, this "fact" is not in "isolat[ion" in any way! Even though the presence of ERV's is overwhelming evidence ON ITS OWN, it is nevertheless supported by the mountains of evidence we have from the fossil record, from morphology, from genetics, from molecular biology, etc...

I would like to see (read) another example of animal chromosome fusion. It would be better if it is similar to the one described for chimp and human.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

Alunyel said:
Igneous rock is much harder than sedimentary, therefore erodes at a much slower pace. Of the three types of rock, igneous is the hardest. That's primary school-level stuff. If you can't get that right, then there's really no point in trying to talk to you about geology showing the age of the Earth, because you clearly haven't the foggiest what you're talking about and I really can't be bothered to have to explain everything I say over and over again.

No. Volcanic rock is much easier to erode even compare to softer sedimentary rocks.

Be humble, young man. You are talking to a geology professor.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

anagnostic said:
Weren't you claiming some expertise in geology before?

The debate is about the difference between a time scale of around 10,000 years and around 4.5 billion years, not about defining terms like 'young' or 'million years', either of which I have no problem with at all.

10,000 years is young, 4.5 billion years is old.

A million years is just a multiple of some other number of years- it is no more or less meaningful than a thousand years. You can pack a million centicubes in a cubic metre - not such a big number, really. Are you suggesting science can't calculate time meaningfully, just because we don't have historical records that old?

Exactly. if 4500 m.y. is old, then 45 m.y. is young.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

Alunyel said:
Please tell me I misinterpreted that post.

Do you genuinely not know that a million years is 1,000,000 full Earth orbits of the Sun?

I know what is 1 m.y. as much as you do.
But I know what I don't know about 1 m.y. much better than you do.

This is a physics problem. I do not intend to go further.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

Hespera said:
Good arguments!

First, claim the other person doesnt understand.

Then make a broad general statement "doesnt erode one layer at a time". could be true, might not, depends.

Now we get a real term! "Incised meander". But how deeply incised thru what type of rock by what volume of water..without that kind of info, comments about how long it would take are meaningless.

Volcanic plug? Maybe. Its an igneous intrusion, does someone here KNOW its a volcanic plug? Or just took a glance at it and decided.

Volcanic rock "deteriorated" faster... than what? Unconsolidated sandstone?
Which volcanic rock? Ash, welded tuff, basalt? The statement is nonsense.

I thought someone here was supposed to be a "geologist"? "Creation petrologist"?

Oh, that would be "deteriorates" not "deteriorated". Take an English class.
The word anyway would be "weathers" not "deteriorated". Take a geology class for that.

Anyhow, what we get here is a couple of semi-meaningless broad generalizations, a couple of unsupportable statements, then a challenge to prove that god didnt do it.

Later we learn that nobody knows what a million years is. I wonder what is the cut off number. We know what a year is dont we? Ten? 627 years? What is it that happens at a higher number I wonder. When we get to say, 111276 years, we still know what it is, but at 111277 it starts to get strange and by 111302, nobody knows what it is any more?

Debate is good fun but debating against nonsense isnt debate and it isnt fun.

I was going to teach you something. But your arrogance thrown me off. So, no teaching.

anagnostic · Jul 22, 2009

juvenissun said:
Exactly. if 4500 m.y. is old, then 45 m.y. is young.

Ok, and your point is?

Hespera · Jul 22, 2009

I was trying to teach YOU something. Its not arrogance that I am right and you are wrong. A geologist really does talk about weathering rather than "deterioration".
Rock type and water flow really does affect the speed of erosion.

You VERY clearly need English lessons. That should be "has thrown me off". Not "thrown me off. I could tutor you for $15 per hour, that is what i charge.

Arrogance? "Highest possible degree of education"? Talk about how you would "teach" ME something? Talk is cheap You haven't shown me anyhitng yet in all those posts.

The only times I cant shred your posts are when you dont say anything about science. Call it arrogance on my part so you can quit the field with an air of superiority. Right-o.

Hespera · Jul 22, 2009

Oh I missed this...

Juv sez..No. Volcanic rock is much easier to erode even compare to softer sedimentary rocks.

Be humble, young man. You are talking to a geology professor.QUOTE////////////////

hespera sez:

There is sandstone (sedimentary rock) around here that you can carve with your fingernails. Would Herr Doktor Professor tell me which type of obsidian is softer than that? Where to find basalt that i can carve with fingernails?

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

Hespera said:
Oh I missed this...

Juv sez..No. Volcanic rock is much easier to erode even compare to softer sedimentary rocks.

Be humble, young man. You are talking to a geology professor.QUOTE////////////////

hespera sez:

There is sandstone (sedimentary rock) around here that you can carve with your fingernails. Would Herr Doktor Professor tell me which type of obsidian is softer than that? Where to find basalt that i can carve with fingernails?

If you show some respect, I will tell you something new. Otherwise, you already have your knowledge.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

anagnostic said:
Ok, and your point is?

YEC is justified scientifically.

anagnostic · Jul 22, 2009

juvenissun said:
YEC is justified scientifically.

...because 45 million years is young?

I asked you before about the time scales for a number of processes in the formation of a deep meandering river in a canyon. Perhaps you could address each one of those.

Are you happy that it could take up to 45 million years to form? Does this fall in the time-frame of YEC? You seem to be saying it does.

Hespera · Jul 22, 2009

juv sez....If you show some respect, I will tell you something new. Otherwise, you already have your knowledge.QUOTE/////////////

Hespsera sez...fine with me. YOU show ME some respect, too, tho. Push the reset,

Ok?

Tell me something new. But first please tell me about the volcanic rock. the basalt that is softer than mudstone, unconsolidated sandstone, etc. That would be new.

In general people get the respect that they earn. Show you know your stuff. i will give you time.

juvenissun View Public Profile Send a private message to juvenissun Send email to juvenissun Find all posts by juvenissun Add juvenissun to Your Contacts

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

anagnostic said:
...because 45 million years is young?

I asked you before about the time scales for a number of processes in the formation of a deep meandering river in a canyon. Perhaps you could address each one of those.

Are you happy that it could take up to 45 million years to form? Does this fall in the time-frame of YEC? You seem to be saying it does.

I am sorry that I do not recall your particular question about the incised meander. May be you can remind me again.

It does not take 45 m.y. to be made. If it took 4 m.y. of time, it can be called young in comparing to the age of the earth.

juvenissun · Jul 22, 2009

Hespera said:
juv sez....If you show some respect, I will tell you something new. Otherwise, you already have your knowledge.QUOTE/////////////

Hespsera sez...fine with me. YOU show ME some respect, too, tho. Push the reset,

Ok?

Tell me something new. But first please tell me about the volcanic rock. the basalt that is softer than mudstone, unconsolidated sandstone, etc. That would be new.

In general people get the respect that they earn. Show you know your stuff. i will give you time.

I am going to be picky. I still don't like these comments.

The science of creationism: where is it?

Newbie

Alunyel

Guest

Undefeated!

Newbie

Active Member

Junior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

Junior Member

Junior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Newbie

Junior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency