The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Son Goku
Now do actually have anything to say about what I posted? Can you give an actual criticism?

I do......

.....Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord!!


Son Goku
“From the point of view of any galaxy all other galaxies are rushing away from it. Every galaxy thinks that it is the centre of an expansion.”

How do you know this – have you asked any other galaxy if it THINKS that it is the centre of an expansion??


Son Goku
on the largest of scales the universe is an evenly distributed goo

I thought that the Universe was EMPTY space and star stuff………

…..would this ‘goo’ stick to your shoes like bonkey’s dog dirt???:eek:


Son Goku
An uneven expansion would obviously cause some parts of the goo to become denser

….would the denser ‘goo’ become more like tar than dog dirt then?

…..and could you clean it off your shoes with a power-hose????


Son Goku
we have a smooth expansion that, no matter where you are, looks like it's coming from the spot you're standing on.

when I was a student I ALSO used find this to be the case…..

……after about five pints!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D


Son Goku
once we've put in the fact that on the largest of scales matter is distributed like a homogeneous goo, the equations spit back out

Homogenous goo and equations spitting back at you !!!:D


Son Goku
the shape of the universe is such that the universe will have a smooth expansion that, no matter where you are, looks like it's coming from the spot you're standing on.

Ah, I see……..

…..as I have already said I used to think that as well ……..

....but since I gave up the drink...... it doesn't happen anymore!!!:D


Son Goku
GR predicts that the furthest galaxies will have a "jerk" …………….. Again we see with our largest telescopes that the furthest galaxies do have a jerk.

......and does EACH galaxy have a "'jerk" ????


Originally Posted by J C
OK, so are you NOW saying that all life developed to it's current level of complexity via ABIOGENESIS????

Son Goku
No, what you're describing is abiogenesis and not evolution

...so you ARE saying that "all life developed to it's current level of complexity via ABIOGENESIS" - and NOT Evolution.

......at least you seem to have stopped believing in Evolution.....

......so can I point out that this 'Abiogenesis' to which you refer, sounds suspiciously like 'Direct Creation'!!!:D


Son Goku
Oh my god,

Yes indeed, He is your God ....... and everybody elses as well

....and He loved us all so much that He died on a cross to save us.....

....and all He asks is that we believe on Him!!!

God the Father loves you as a son, Son ....... and Jesus loves you too!!!!!

robindch

Son Goku wrote:

No, what you're describing is abiogenesis and not evolution.

As a general comment, creationists seem almost genetically unable to distinguish between the two and, if I were you, I certainly wouldn't bother wasting my time trying to make the distinction clear when all the many previous efforts have failed. Unless, of course, any creationists wants to chime in and claim that they understand the difference...?

Creationists - has anything written in this thread caused you to update your knowledge or opinion about anything?

Son Goku

As a general comment, creationists seem almost genetically unable to distinguish between the two and, if I were you, I certainly wouldn't bother wasting my time trying to make the distinction clear when all the many previous efforts have failed. Unless, of course, any creationists wants to chime in and claim that they understand the difference...?

You're definitely correct. However is he not getting or purpose or does he genuinely not get it?

JC wrote:

Everything he said.

Good work man.

Anyway, wolfsbane I hope you'll be able to comment on the Big Bang post above. If there's anything you find dubious be sure to point it out.

pH

Initially I thought that J C was a troll, and was doing this for attention, but at some point in these 1,000s of posts it seemed he was sincere. However that last post seems to be a rather desperate attempt to re-troll the thread.

I think taking Son Goku's post (which rather than using terse strict-mathematical language attempted to explain some of this in a more natural and everyday prose) and mocking his choice of words is extremely cheap, and a final(?) attempt to drag this thread into the slagging match he craves.

robindch

Son Goku wrote:

However is he not getting or purpose or does he genuinely not get it?

I think it varies from creationist to creationist. You may have luck with younger creationists, but the older group are, I believe, no longer able to learn -- not only because they find it intellectually difficult or confusing, but also because they've invested a fair amount of time in creationism and it they believe it would make them look silly if they changed opinion and, externally at least, religion is all about public image, as JC's remarkable reluctance to identify himself shows.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

Ten seconds is a bit fine for analogy to today's conditions, so let me go with 10 minutes:

I chose 10 seconds to give you a generous timeframe, not a restrictive one.

Compare the two timeframes given for the age of the universe.

One says the universe is in-and-around 13.7 billion years old. This is the one I favour, and hte one we can compare to some "normal" amount of drying time.

One says the universe is in-and-around 10,000 years old. This is the one Young Earth Creationists favour and which we have to compare to the "fast" drying time.

Lets make for easy math, and round down the 13.7 billion to 10 billion. So we have a difference in scale of 6 orders of magnitude - the YEC scale is one million times shorter then the accepted scientific model.

One second in the YEC timeframe is, therefore, comparable to 1,000,000 seconds in the standard model. 60 seconds in a minute. 60 minutes in an hour. 24 hours in a day. Thats 86,400 seconds per day. Thats a shade over 11.5 days for one million seconds.

10 seconds - the timeframe I allowed your doodoo-drying model - is therefore
equivalent to just over 115 days, or somewhere close to 4 months.

You say this is unreasonably short for the analagy and I should give you 10 minutes - the equivalent of saying that you stepped in dung more than 10 years ago under the standard model.

Now perhaps you see the problem?

IF I were to say "1 week" was a reasonable drying time in the scientific model, - your longer suggested timeframe - I should have given you somewhere less than a second for your model.

I didn't do that. I gave you at least 2 orders of magnitude of difference "for free" and yet you would suggest that I was being unfair and that such a short timeframe was unreasonable!!!!

Do you deny my 10 minute Jeddah model is not just as scientifically valid as your 1000x longer Lurgan model?

Not in the slightest. I accept that for any scientific model, there can be "challenger" models.

Where you seem to be going wrong though, is taking this perfectly valid approach, and concluding that any alternate model is therefore valid....or at least any alternate model that you subscribe to.

I used the difference in timescales between the YEC model and the scientific one, scaled it to the "dog dirt" problem, decided to give you a chance, and gave you about a 100-fold increase on what I guessed you'd accept as resaonable.

You didn't disappoint, and rightly pointed out that it was unreasonable to accept a model that said the dung dried in seconds.

In other words, when it comes to dog-dung, you can see why such a drastic change of scale is not conducive to something which would be accepted as reasonable.

Can you explain why it is acceptable in any other situation, most notably to the age of the unverse?

The error lies in drawing faulty inferences from few facts.

No. THe error lies in assuming that anything which is not conducive to yoru argument is not a fact, but an error. This is what is required for the Creationist argument.

The scandal is in suppressing discussion of one or other of these theories on the assumption that our theory must be right. Such an assumption is not scientific but religious.

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

Arguing that radio-isotope dating techniques must be wrong because they say the earth is way older than the Young-Earth Creationist model is just that.

Arguing that geological science must be wrong because it infers an earth far older than 10,000 years is just that.

Arguing that dog-droppings dry in 10 seconds and that all evidence to the contrary must be wrong is no different, and you've accepted that.

You've accepted that the amount of evidence one would have to wilfully discard to argue a 10-second-drying model is untenable. And yet, you still want us to accept that the equivalent of arguing for a .1 second model is somehow different.

Creationism says that the material universe came into being mature, and that all of the evidence before us is consistent with that.

I have said before that if a Creationist wants to argue that God made the universe 6,000 years ago (or whatever number of thousand is currently in vogue) and made it to look exactly like one which would form from Big-Bang conditions 13.7 billion years or so ago, then I have no objection to that. It is, however, definitively non-scientific as it involves a model not based on observation, that is not testable, and that is non-falsifiable.

That Creationists go to such great lengths to argue that their work is scientific is sufficient proof that this is not an acceptable answer for them.

It would certainly be strecting it to inmagine how 10 seconds would be enough to dry the dirt. But is it really contrary to what we know of physics for Everest to have risen a few miles in a thousand or so years?

Yes. It is.

That's about an inch a day. The current rate is about half that in a year.

So...roughly 750 times slower than what would be needed.

If you impact a wall at 1m/second, you'll almost certainly be fine. Do you think you'll also be fine if you run into a wall at 750m/second? Thats roughly Mach 3, in case you're wondering.

Of course, if you believe rates don't change nor are subject to catastrophe, then that rules out a period of rise 700x as great.

What I believe is that changes of close to three orders of magnitude completely change the physics at play. I'm finding it difficult to find physical systems where this is not the case.

If you believe great disturbances of the Earth or Sun can occur, then such uplift cannot be ruled out.

And by this logic, we can't rule out humans impacting walls at mach3 walking away unharmed, because they can do so at 1 m/sec.

We can't rule out sniper bullets bouncing off human skin because thats what they'd do if they were travelling 750 times slower.

We can't rule out dog-dirt drying in 10 seconds, because thats what they could do in 12.5 minutes.

Ten seconds is a bit fine for analogy to today's conditions, so let me go with 10 minutes

My apologies. On the last one, apparently we can rule it out.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

Anyway, wolfsbane I hope you'll be able to comment on the Big Bang post above. If there's anything you find dubious be sure to point it out.

Thanks for that concise and helpful explanation. It gave me a clearer picture of what the Big Bang theory entails.

I'm still trying to get my head around some of its details: If space is expanding, will this lead toward an infinitely diffuse universe? If the rules of distance itself are changing in response to the presence of matter, can we be sure the rules have not been different in the past than they are now - in a different way than extrapolation would suggest? That is, is the rule of distance/matter a constant or it it itself subject to change? (Sorry if that turns out to be a stupid question).

Finally, is the concept of the multiverse a necessary companion to the Big Bang theory?

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Now perhaps you see the problem?

IF I were to say "1 week" was a reasonable drying time in the scientific model, - your longer suggested timeframe - I should have given you somewhere less than a second for your model.

I didn't do that. I gave you at least 2 orders of magnitude of difference "for free" and yet you would suggest that I was being unfair and that such a short timeframe was unreasonable!!!!

I see how you could think that, but the difference for me is that drying dog-dirt on shoes does have certain obvious limits of time compression. But we do have many examples of very rapid formation of natural features - canyons, sedimentary layers, for example - that it is known have taken centuries in other circumstances, and that the evolutionary model insists took millions of years.

Where you seem to be going wrong though, is taking this perfectly valid approach, and concluding that any alternate model is therefore valid....or at least any alternate model that you subscribe to.

Well, Yes - but only if they present the argument from physics, chemistry, etc. to support it. I mean, I don't belief in evolution, but evolutionists do present a case. What I mean by valid is not that it must turn out to be correct, but that it fulfils the criteria of scientific argument.

No. THe error lies in assuming that anything which is not conducive to yoru argument is not a fact, but an error. This is what is required for the Creationist argument.

So you would not regard as an error anything which is not conducive to yoru argument? You accept then that polystrat fossils prove that all the layers they are imbeded in are roughly of the same age?

And by this logic, we can't rule out humans impacting walls at mach3 walking away unharmed, because they can do so at 1 m/sec.

Your logic fails here, for you have chosen the outcome and fitted it to your requirements. To use logic in this example, I could just as easily say it proves my case: Humans can walk away from an impact at 0.0075 m/sec, and also at 750x that.

The issue really is, could the Earth survive an inch-a-day uplift of its mountain ranges? Maybe you could suggest the maximum figure you believe physics would allow?

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm still trying to get my head around some of its details: If space is expanding, will this lead toward an infinitely diffuse universe?

Yeah, pretty much.

wolfsbane wrote:

If the rules of distance itself are changing in response to the presence of matter, can we be sure the rules have not been different in the past than they are now - in a different way than extrapolation would suggest? That is, is the rule of distance/matter a constant or it it itself subject to change? (Sorry if that turns out to be a stupid question).

Okay, basically the rule that relates distance and matter is known as Einstein's Field Equation. It is our current "Law of Gravity".

So first of all, standard extrapolation takes this equation as correct for all times and in all places(I'll try to justify why this is a decent assumption in a moment) and this leads to the statement that as time decreases, distance works differently at earlier times such that things get closer and closer.
You might view Einstein's Field Equation as a sort of "meta"rule, that relates the current distribution of matter to the rule for how distance works. It has the basic form:

(Distribution of matter) = (Rule for distance) + (Curvature of Space)

Assuming this above equation is always correct and that our distribution of matter is a homogeneous goo, we get the Big Bang.

However your question basically is "Can we be sure this equation is always right?". To answer this, I'll try to show you what happens when we attempt to throw the equation out and get a different "Law of Gravity".

Einstein found the equation by attempting to derive a description of gravity. He didn't start out with the idea that distance could change and space could curve. It could be possible that there is a theory of gravity where this stuff doesn't happen, but I'll show you why that is almost impossible.

If we're going to throw out the equation and derive a new one, the new one better work with special relativity since it has been confirmed in over a billion experiments. Second of all we better make sure it works with what is called the principal of equivalence. This principle states loosely that it is often very difficult to tell the difference between the effects of gravity and the effects of acceleration. This was first notice by Galileo and I think it is the fifth most "proven" thing in science. Thirdly we better make sure that it doesn't break mass-energy conservation, because we've never seen that break.

Now there exists a proof (you'll unfortunatly have to take my word on this) that in any theory of gravity satisfying the above conditions, distance can change and space can curve. There is no way you can write down an equation that describes gravity and satisfies the above three things that doesn't allow distance to change and space to curve.

However it turns out that there is alot of theories that satisfy the stuff above*. Einstein's theory is the simplest of all of these. (Which was the reason he picked it).

Now we turn to experiment. It turns out that most of the theories we couldn't rule out by purely mathematical reasons don't match experiment. By today (particularly April 12th of this year) Einstein's is only the one of the theories which matches the experiment.

This is our reason for trusting it so much.

I should also mention that most of the experimentally incorrect theories also predict a Big Bang. A Big Bang is a generic feature of theories of gravity, even the incorrect ones.

I hoped that helped.

wolfsbane wrote:

Finally, is the concept of the multiverse a necessary companion to the Big Bang theory?

No, not at all. In fact the multiverse idea has never found a practical use. Occasionally popular accounts of physics like to mention it, but it isn't a scientifically valid idea.




*However there is infinitely many that don't.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

bonkey said:

I see how you could think that, but the difference for me is that drying dog-dirt on shoes does have certain obvious limits of time compression. But we do have many examples of very rapid formation of natural features - canyons, sedimentary layers, for example - that it is known have taken centuries in other circumstances, and that the evolutionary model insists took millions of years.

Are you saying that rock-folding is known to have occurred at the speeds you require it to occur at?

Note - known implies that it has been observed happening. If you wish to use any lesser definition of what known means, then an awful lot of the science you are insisting is wrong is also known to be correct - hardly helpful to your argument.

It also requires that we be talking about the same rock-types.

So...where has this folding known to have occurred?

Faulting occurs rapidly. In fact, faulting is what happens when processes occur too rapidly for folding. So faulted-features don't count as evidence that folding can occur in short timescales. Indeed, they support quite the opposite - they support the model that says if things move too rapidly, we get faulting and not folding, and thus evidence of folding implies a slow timescale.

Well, Yes - but only if they present the argument from physics, chemistry, etc. to support it.

Mountain ranges growing at your 750-times-current-rate - to take the example at hand - have no physics to support them. It involves a refutation of physics.

So you would not regard as an error anything which is not conducive to yoru argument?

Falsifiability requires that I not do this. After all, if its dismissed as an error, how can I have falsifiability?

I would, rather, accept it first as a potential problem with my arguemnt.

The question then remains as to whether my model is correct and the contra-indication is in error, whether my model is incomplete, whether my model needs to be limited in scope (e.g. we say it "generally is the case" as opposed to "always is the case"), or rejected outright.

However, until I show - or make a compelling case - as to which of those is the case, then it remains an open question. I'm not aware of any scientific model which claims to be complete, so the existence of open questions is not necessarily an issue. It may be, depending on the nature (and quantity) of the question(s), or it may not be.

For example, I am not aware of any model for mountains growing at the rates you require which does not require the invocation of conditions never witnessed anywhere. They require speeds at which faulting rather than folding should occur. And yet the Alps and Himalayas (amongst others) are folded ranges. So to suggest they folded in such a rapid timescale would require special conditions and plenty of them.

I have yet to see these conditions expressed in a falsifiable manner. Generally, we see appeals to a special case which occured at the time, left no evidence of its occurrence that wasn't consistent with the scientific models which say the conditions today were the conditions over the past millions of years, and which cannot be falsified because they basically say "well, it happened differently, but it will look exactly the same". We're sometimes told instead that many of the accompanying science is also wrong. Why? Because it has to be - how else could the mountains that are only thousands of years old be said to be millions or more in age?

So either the mountains look like they are millions of years old, or anything which says they do must be wrong. And the falsifiability of this is where? Where is the statement or implication that "if X is observed, we are wrong"? Its not there.

Now...were a more complete (but still falsifiable) model to be presented, which could explain these anomalies and all the other observations, with fewer assumptions, it would be preferable.

In summary, the "young mountain" idea is non-scientific. It involves dismissing as incorrect any evidence which says otherwise, but cannot predict any evidence different to the model which it is insisting is wrong.

To borrow a quote from your good seld - they work on the assumption that our theory must be right. Such an assumption is not scientific but religious.

You accept then that polystrat fossils prove that all the layers they are imbeded in are roughly of the same age?

What have polystrat fossils got to do with geological folding/faulting?

One of the reasons this thread has gone on so long, revisiting the same points again and again is because of exactly this. As soon as we start looking at one area in detail....along comes a tangential question dragging us to another area.

I'm maintaining that mountains cannot grow in the speeds you state. That has nothing to do with polystrat fossil aging. When we're done with mountains, ask me this question again, and I'll happily answer it. Or show me how this question is central to the aging of mountains, and I'll happily answer it.

Your logic fails here, for you have chosen the outcome and fitted it to your requirements.

That is what YEC-proponents are doing. I assumed you would have no problem with it as a methodology. It appears my reasoning was in error. Perhaps you could explain when you thnk it is an acceptable methodology to use?

Lest you think I'm being facetious, allow me to explain why this is not the case....

To use logic in this example, I could just as easily say it proves my case: Humans can walk away from an impact at 0.0075 m/sec, and also at 750x that.

The scientific models of geology require that there is an upper limit at which such events occur. Indeed, this is true of all scientific models - there are upper limits of applicability.

You are requiring a speed for mountain creation which is in excess of the relevant upper limit, not some lower limit. If you were arguing that the alps took billionsof years to form, it would be the equivalent of what you claim is logical above, but in that case I would be pointing to a different flaw in the reasoning.

You are arguing that the alps formed far more rapidly. You argue for speeds that would require faulting, not folding. But thats not what the evidence says. The evidence says they were folded.

So you are requiring that something happened at a point above where it is psosible according to standard models. So no, while it might be logical to say we can fold at .001mm per year, and we can fold at 1mm per year, it is not logical to say we can therefore fold at 1m/year.

Any scaling of timescales must take into account whether or not other factors will scale equally. The YEC models ignore this, and conclude the equivalent of mach3 impacts with walls being non-fatal, .1-second being long enoguh for dog-poo to dry out in natural conditions,

So....why is it "logical" for you and YECs to accelerate effects beyond the limits where they can be shown to apply, but not for me? Why is your "1,000 years instead of 1000,000,000" argument ok? Apparently its because you say so and unfortunately thats not good enough....not if you want your arguments to be considered as scientifically based.

I've shown there are cases where accelerating something a "mere" 750-fold can be catastrophic. If you want to argue that this is not applicable to your argument, you need to show its not. That's the scientific way. You need to establish your case first.

The issue really is, could the Earth survive an inch-a-day uplift of its mountain ranges?

No, the issue is can rock fold at that speed. The answer is no. It should fault at that speed.

Maybe you could suggest the maximum figure you believe physics would allow?

Might I suggest that the burden of proof is first on the person making a claim. Until thats been done, there is nothing to refute.

Show me the physics that say rock of the necessary types can fold at the speeds you require. Only then is there something to refute.

I do not need to counter a claim which has not yet managed to supply evidence that its claims are possible. Only when such evidence is supplied do I need to concern myself with explaining why such a model is wrong.

Why?

Because that is the scientific way.

You want YEC to be accepted as scientific, then you have to play by the scientific rules. The first burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Once that claim has been established, only can it be properly evaluated.

Your so-called theory requires rock to be able to fold at a specific rate. The onus is on you to show that it can, rather than on me to show why that's not possible. You can refer to anyone else's work to save you doing the numbers yoruself, but doing so means that your model now lives and dies with the quality of that referenced work. If it can be shown to be bogus, your model is also wrong.

This is how science works. These are the rules of the game.

And here's the thing....if you don't play by those rules, then you're not being victimised - you're being correctly rejected as non-scientific.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

wolfsbane wrote:

I see how you could think that, but the difference for me is that drying dog-dirt on shoes does have certain obvious limits of time compression. But we do have many examples of very rapid formation of natural features - canyons, sedimentary layers, for example - that it is known have taken centuries in other circumstances, and that the evolutionary model insists took millions of years.

Are you saying that rock-folding is known to have occurred at the speeds you require it to occur at?

Syn-sedimentary folding of rocks is indeed known, and occurs rapidly under gravity slumping of wet sediment piles.

Unfortunately for wolfsbane's argument, there are large and obvious differences between the folding of wet/unconsolidated sediment, and the folding of sedimentary rock. If anyone requires a list of the differences, I can do one for you.

Syn-sedimentary deformation is rather rare in the geological record.

bonkey wrote:

Note - known implies that it has been observed happening. If you wish to use any lesser definition of what known means, then an awful lot of the science you are insisting is wrong is also known to be correct - hardly helpful to your argument.

It also requires that we be talking about the same rock-types.

So...where has this folding known to have occurred?

It is not really possible to observe the internal arrangement of sedimentary piles during such deformation - coring yields a blended mess in wet sediment. That the deformation is syn-sedimentary is determined in the usual 'forensic' way of geology...

bonkey wrote:

Faulting occurs rapidly. In fact, faulting is what happens when processes occur too rapidly for folding. So faulted-features don't count as evidence that folding can occur in short timescales. Indeed, they support quite the opposite - they support the model that says if things move too rapidly, we get faulting and not folding, and thus evidence of folding implies a slow timescale.

The timescales required for folding thin rock layers without fracturing them are very large.

bonkey wrote:

Mountain ranges growing at your 750-times-current-rate - to take the example at hand - have no physics to support them. It involves a refutation of physics.

It also requires evidence that is entirely missing. Mountain growth is a balance between erosion rates and uplift rates. If uplift rates were 750-times-current, erosion rates would need to be similar, requiring similarly greater diurnal temperature ranges, rainfall, snowfall etc.

In addition, mountains weigh a lot. You cannot shoot them up into the sky very quickly - believe it or not, they would simply fall through the bottom of the continental plate! Further, rapid mountain growth would have drastically changed the balance of the plate - so that northern India would now be sagging rapidly into the sea to regain isostatic equlibrium.

We actually have sea-level records for several thousand years (because the priests recorded things like the heights of wells, and the number of steps of Poseidon's temple that were covered by the sea, plus the evidence of ancient beaches and drowned shorelines). Nothing in the record correlates at all with the idea of rapid mountain uplift. Again, aside from anything else, 750-times mountain uplift rates would also mean 750-times sealevel change rates, which gives you rates of 7.5 metres/year as opposed to 1 cm/year...something that would stand out rather.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm glad we agree on that. A, ahem, major breakthrough.

We agree quite often, actually...!

wolfsbane wrote:

Hmm. Is that part of a strictly scientific argument? Does it rule out 'eureka' moments'? Or historical reports? Or scientific evidence that suggests a recent creation (Polystrate fossils, Soft-sediment deformation, for example)? Why not even forming such a model just for curiosity - would that mean it would not be scientific?

I take your point. You would be within your (scientific) rights to say, let's use a Biblical model and see what happens...

However, since probably the most important feature of the YEC model is the "young" bit, that is the bit that would be regarded as the 'test feature'.

So, while you could build a model that simply assumed the 6000 years as a starting condition, that is much less scientific than building a model that contains all the other Biblical constraints, and seeing whether the figure of 6000 years emerged naturally from it.

The reason why the 6000 years is the test, and not, say, the Flood, is because the Flood is a specific Act of God - a unique, non-repeatable event - whereas the age is more of a property of the system.

wolfsbane wrote:

Agreed. That's what creation science is providing. (I'm sure you don't mean that a complete explanation for all observations would be necessary - for the evolutionary model hasn't provided that yet).

Mmm, no. The YEC model accounts for almost nothing except the grossest features, and relies on the "evolutionary model" for everything else. There is, for example, no "Creationist" model of cross-bedding, or of varves, or fossilisation.

There really is a lot of explaining to catch up on, for the Creationist model to have anything like the explanatory force of the evolutionary models. Aside from anything else, the evolutionary models nearly all fit each other at the edges, and even in unexpected and subtle ways - the Creationist theories mostly conflict.

wolfsbane wrote:

Then if I said 6000 years was not the starting point. It is the current best estimate, you would have no problem with my saying both systems only deal with what occurred after whatever the actual starting point was?

As a rhetorical point, yes. Scientifically, no. 6000 years is the major point at issue in the YEC model, and it arises from calculating lineages as written in the Bible, not from the evidence which the YEC model has to explain. It is not, then, a best estimate in the same way.

wolfsbane wrote:

The science of Creationism is soley concerned with matching the observations with the model. Creationism's religious agenda is a separate cause, served by the scientific argument but not identical to it.

Not true. I see no reason to rehash the various legal judgements that have knocked that assertion down. Creationism serves a religious agenda - the identification of the two is 99% or better.

wolfsbane wrote:

They would need one that offered a prima facie case. Two basic models presented themselves, as I understand it, in the development of our understanding of our universe - especially our planet. Long and slow, or short and fast. Both can make a prima facie case. Those antagonistic to Christian teaching would naturally go for the former. Any variation in it would be acceptable, but nothing approaching the Biblical figure.

It's peculiar how willing you are to ignore history. Western science started out as an examination of God's handiwork. The timescale proposed by Ussher was not generally taken as Gospel (because it isn't, of course), but the general assumption was that the Earth was relatively young, and had been created fully formed.

The road away from the original YEC model in which all science was conducted was a slow one, and many kept the form after the facts had clearly broken away from it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Any figure closer to the truth would not give the clear blue water required for a sleeping conscience.

The figure was not created ex nihilo. It has 'evolved' out of the 6000 year figure.

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm sure that is exactly what Creation Science is doing. Where they got the idea that there was a global flood is beside the point. They offer the Flood model to explain Earth's geology.

That is the argument - there is evidence in the rocks that point to the Flood.

I think you missed the point slightly. The Flood was not thought of as an explanation of what was observed in the rocks - it was used as an explanation because it was in the Bible. That is what I mean when I say that the rocks did not suggest the Flood.

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree. That's what our scientist friends in Creation Science have been doing.

They have done very little, and have a lot to do. I don't mean that as a put-down, but as an observation. There simply aren't detailed Creationist explanations of, say, axial bud growth, or mitosis, other than a vague hand-wave and the phrase "God made it that way".

What I am saying to you is that science, which is to say the study of God's work of Creation, led to the conclusion that Genesis could not be read scientifically. It did this about a century ago, and you are still quibbling with the conclusion.

If God did not intend to mislead us, by making the world seem other than it is, then surely God's Creation itself is a better guide to what God actually did than the record of it is - particularly since that record was given to people who did not understand science, but understood myth.

Did it ever occur to you that this might have been the intention? That a primitive people were given a primitive story, and God expected them, as they grew more sophisticated, to find their way to a better understanding of the truth?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

I hoped that helped.

Yes. Thank you for the help.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Are you saying that rock-folding is known to have occurred at the speeds you require it to occur at?

I didn't mention rock-folding, much less it being known to occur at those speeds or not. But, yes, it would be a requirement for such rapid uplift. Is such rapid folding known to have occurred? See REGIONAL METAMORPHISM WITHIN A CREATIONIST FRAMEWORK: WHAT GARNET COMPOSITIONS REVEAL http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_regionalmetamorphism/ I gather that seems to be the suggestion there. And Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/98/

Note - known implies that it has been observed happening. If you wish to use any lesser definition of what known means, then an awful lot of the science you are insisting is wrong is also known to be correct - hardly helpful to your argument.

No, I'm happy to accept observed as known. But I go with a greater definition that adds, even what is not observed may also be true. One caveat with known, however: often what is today claimed to be known, is tomorrow known to be false. So we should be very careful in using the term.

Mountain ranges growing at your 750-times-current-rate - to take the example at hand - have no physics to support them. It involves a refutation of physics.

I would be glad to hear specifically which parts of physics prohibit such rapid uplift.

Quote:
So you would not regard as an error anything which is not conducive to yoru argument?


Falsifiability requires that I not do this. After all, if its dismissed as an error, how can I have falsifiability?

Ok, I can agree with that.

I would, rather, accept it first as a potential problem with my arguemnt.

Good.

The question then remains as to whether my model is correct and the contra-indication is in error, whether my model is incomplete, whether my model needs to be limited in scope (e.g. we say it "generally is the case" as opposed to "always is the case"), or rejected outright.

Agreed.

However, until I show - or make a compelling case - as to which of those is the case, then it remains an open question. I'm not aware of any scientific model which claims to be complete, so the existence of open questions is not necessarily an issue. It may be, depending on the nature (and quantity) of the question(s), or it may not be.

Yes.

For example, I am not aware of any model for mountains growing at the rates you require which does not require the invocation of conditions never witnessed anywhere.

Yes, the Flood was a unique event. (Not to say a limited uplift of such rapidity could not occur again).

They require speeds at which faulting rather than folding should occur. And yet the Alps and Himalayas (amongst others) are folded ranges. So to suggest they folded in such a rapid timescale would require special conditions and plenty of them.

I have yet to see these conditions expressed in a falsifiable manner.
Generally, we see appeals to a special case which occured at the time, left no evidence of its occurrence that wasn't consistent with the scientific models which say the conditions today were the conditions over the past millions of years, and which cannot be falsified because they basically say "well, it happened differently, but it will look exactly the same".

Both creationists and evolutionists deal with the same evidence. It is their explanations that differ. The evidence cannot change, only the explanations to account for it. But both sides do argue that parts of the evidence are not consistent with their opponent's models.

We're sometimes told instead that many of the accompanying science is also wrong. Why? Because it has to be - how else could the mountains that are only thousands of years old be said to be millions or more in age?

All science involves the refutation of accompanying science, from time to time. Creationism refutes the inferences drawn from radioisotope-dating, for example.

So either the mountains look like they are millions of years old, or anything which says they do must be wrong. And the falsifiability of this is where? Where is the statement or implication that "if X is observed, we are wrong"? Its not there.

I'm not sure what positive proof would be needed - can you suggest? But negatively; for example - if rapid folding were proven to be impossible, that would falsify the argument; or if physics could show that such a rapid uplift would cause a general collapse of the mantle. That's my layman's guess.

In summary, the "young mountain" idea is non-scientific. It involves dismissing as incorrect any evidence which says otherwise, but cannot predict any evidence different to the model which it is insisting is wrong.

What evidence is it dismissing? It claims the same evidence as you do, just refutes your interpretation of it.

What have polystrat fossils got to do with geological folding/faulting?

If they showed that your long-age model was vastly incorrect, then a lot. But I did not mention them in regard to mountain formation.

One of the reasons this thread has gone on so long, revisiting the same points again and again is because of exactly this. As soon as we start looking at one area in detail....along comes a tangential question dragging us to another area.

I'm maintaining that mountains cannot grow in the speeds you state. That has nothing to do with polystrat fossil aging. When we're done with mountains, ask me this question again, and I'll happily answer it. Or show me how this question is central to the aging of mountains, and I'll happily answer it.

I raised polystrate fossils to challenge your objection that I regard as an error anything which is not conducive to my argument. I then responded, You accept then that polystrat fossils prove that all the layers they are imbeded in are roughly of the same age? You have indicated above that you would not regard it as an error, just a potential problem with your argument - and I can accept that approach.

Quote:
Your logic fails here, for you have chosen the outcome and fitted it to your requirements.


That is what YEC-proponents are doing. I assumed you would have no problem with it as a methodology. It appears my reasoning was in error. Perhaps you could explain when you thnk it is an acceptable methodology to use? Lest you think I'm being facetious, allow me to explain why this is not the case....


Quote:
To use logic in this example, I could just as easily say it proves my case: Humans can walk away from an impact at 0.0075 m/sec, and also at 750x that.


The scientific models of geology require that there is an upper limit at which such events occur. Indeed, this is true of all scientific models - there are upper limits of applicability.

You are requiring a speed for mountain creation which is in excess of the relevant upper limit, not some lower limit. If you were arguing that the alps took billionsof years to form, it would be the equivalent of what you claim is logical above, but in that case I would be pointing to a different flaw in the reasoning.

You are arguing that the alps formed far more rapidly. You argue for speeds that would require faulting, not folding. But thats not what the evidence says. The evidence says they were folded.

I've no problem with limits, upper or lower. My problem is with valid determination of such limits. You are using the presence of folding to disprove rapid uplift: but that presupposes folding cannot occur rapidly. That presupposition has been challenged.

So you are requiring that something happened at a point above where it is psosible according to standard models.

But it is the standard models that are being questioned.

Any scaling of timescales must take into account whether or not other factors will scale equally. The YEC models ignore this, and conclude the equivalent of mach3 impacts with walls being non-fatal, .1-second being long enoguh for dog-poo to dry out in natural conditions,

But they don't: it is only your interpretation that such rapid uplift cannot occur, not something that is a fact.

I've shown there are cases where accelerating something a "mere" 750-fold can be catastrophic. If you want to argue that this is not applicable to your argument, you need to show its not. That's the scientific way. You need to establish your case first.

Creationists point to evidence that seems to support their assertion that rapid uplift and folding are not exclusive.

Quote:
The issue really is, could the Earth survive an inch-a-day uplift of its mountain ranges?


No, the issue is can rock fold at that speed. The answer is no. It should fault at that speed.

That is the debate.

Quote:
Maybe you could suggest the maximum figure you believe physics would allow?


Might I suggest that the burden of proof is first on the person making a claim. Until thats been done, there is nothing to refute.

Show me the physics that say rock of the necessary types can fold at the speeds you require. Only then is there something to refute.

I can only refer you to the articles I listed, and suggest that - with your scientific ability - you follow links to other relevant sites.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

bonkey said:

I didn't mention rock-folding, much less it being known to occur at those speeds or not. But, yes, it would be a requirement for such rapid uplift. Is such rapid folding known to have occurred? See REGIONAL METAMORPHISM WITHIN A CREATIONIST FRAMEWORK: WHAT GARNET COMPOSITIONS REVEAL http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_regionalmetamorphism/ I gather that seems to be the suggestion there. And Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. http://www.icr.org/article/98/

Wolfsbane you, just like JC, are a great one for responding to direct questions with links to Creationists websites.

Can you actually explain what both these articles are saying?

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

I didn't mention rock-folding, much less it being known to occur at those speeds or not.

You said that violent events could conceivably form ranges such as the Alps at these rates. The Alps were formed through folding.

If you don't see how this directly requires that folding occur at the speeds you require it to occur at, then its hard to see how you can argue that your position has merit at all.

No, I'm happy to accept observed as known. But I go with a greater definition that adds, even what is not observed may also be true.
One caveat with known, however: often what is today claimed to be known, is tomorrow known to be false. So we should be very careful in using the term.

I'm not the one throwing it around to back up my argument. I agree we should be very careful in using the term.

In specific terms, you said we have things known to take centuries that scientific models say should have taken millions of years. I disagree. I don't think we know any such thing. I think that either something is being misrepresented or that its something hypothesised rather than known.

We know the height of the Alps, because we can measure them. We can know the rate of change of the Alps, within the tolerances of our measuring methodologies, because we can measure it.

This is what I mean by equating something known with something observed. You argue that we know certain features took only centuries. I'm asking whether or not we actually know this, or simply taht some creationists argue that it is the case. I'd like to know the details of what it is these things are, so we can see if they're applicable to what we're talking about here.

I would be glad to hear specifically which parts of physics prohibit such rapid uplift.

One of the most simple examples is the brittleness of rock. If you try moving it at the speeds you require, it will fracture. You'd end up with a large pile of shattered rock, not the mountains and valleys that we see today.

A second one is the different ages of mountains. Compare the Jura to the Alps, and they are entirely different. Despite having comparable rock structures, one is far, far more weathered than the other. Its been worn down (by erosion) to a vastly greater degree.

Scofflaw has already pointed out some of the more complex ones, such as isostatic rebound. Simply put, there is no way the earth's structure could handle that rapid a change to its structure without long-lasting, violent, observeable reactions, if it didn't result (as it should) with the shattering of the crust from the sudden shift in weight. But these expected reprecussions are not there.

Yes, the Flood was a unique event. (Not to say a limited uplift of such rapidity could not occur again).

Lets say you're right. I think we can agree that in this case the Flood was not just a flood, but is rather a description for a whole sequence of events (uplift of mountains being one).

You seem to be arguing that this series of "unique events" is not bound by the current laws of physics. Indeed, for it to be unique, you require that it not be bound by the current laws of physics, else the possibility of a reoccurrence would exist.

So we have a situation where you can argue that if the current laws of physics say its impossible (such as the brittleness of rock, the question of isostatic rebound, and all the rest of it), this doesn't mean that the laws of physics at the time of the flood prevented it.

Am I understanding this correctly - that you basically have a "carte blanche" to say "yes, but in this non-repeatable event, the laws of physics as we know them didn't necessarily apply, so if we require them to have been different, they were".

Both creationists and evolutionists deal with the same evidence. It is their explanations that differ. The evidence cannot change, only the explanations to account for it.

That doesn't make the explanations equally valid, nor does it make them scientific.

But both sides do argue that parts of the evidence are not consistent with their opponent's models.

Superficially, this is true. It is, of course, true of any two models who's proponents take the time to discuss with each other.

If I argue that it was all done by dragons and wizards, the same would be true of my model and the scientific model were anyone to argue against my model from a scientific perspective. Does that mean my draconian model is scientific or credible?

All science involves the refutation of accompanying science, from time to time. Creationism refutes the inferences drawn from radioisotope-dating, for example.

The list of what creationism refutes from mainstream science is almsot without end. It also doesn't have a valid replacement for what it replaces.

I'm not sure what positive proof would be needed - can you suggest?

The burden of proof is not mine. If you - or your fellow proponents - cannot explain why the Flood model is supported, then it is unsupported. When you offer that support, the burden of proof shifts to those favouring science to either show why your clarified argument is still faulty.

But negatively; for example - if rapid folding were proven to be impossible, that would falsify the argument;

If only Creationists would accept that. Unfortunately, as we have already seen, there is always the appeal regarding the Flood that "things were different during this unique time", which is a get-out-of-jail-free card.

What evidence is it dismissing? It claims the same evidence as you do, just refutes your interpretation of it.

It refutes it only on the grounds of "it must be wrong because it doesn't support our model", rather than on grounds that "we can show this to be wrong". It relies on casting uncertainty by playing up the lack of absolute certainty in anything scientific, rather than by showing counter-examples. It relies on appealing to unique, non-reproducible conditions which are only ever formed after it is determined what they need to have been. It makes no predictions which can later be tested, because those predictions can always be couched in the "unique event" timeframe which means that testing showing them to be impossible today are meaningless.

In short, if it refutes the scientific interpretation, it does so simply by dismissing it in a non-scientific manner.

You are using the presence of folding to disprove rapid uplift: but that presupposes folding cannot occur rapidly. That presupposition has been challenged.

Between myself and Scofflaw, you've been given a good handful of reasons why rapid uplift is incompatible with folding. The burden now shifts back to you to show that these challenges are not sufficient.

You cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that rock cannot fold, I can only explain why the scientific model says it won't. To refute that, you either have to explain or show why it can. Why wouldn't isostatic rebound be an issue? How would brittle rock bend, resulting in non-linear rock-strata? Can you describe a test carried out which would show rock bending, and then show or describe how the conditions at the time are compatible with the test?

Or will we simply have an appeal to unspecified "unique conditions"? It suits me fine if we do, as such an appeal is, by its very nature, non-testable, non-falsifiable, non-predictive.

it is only your interpretation that such rapid uplift cannot occur, not something that is a fact.

I believe It would also be "only your interpretation" that dragons and magic couldn't have done it...not something that is a fact. Indeed, of the infinite number of fantastical ways we can dream up for how it happened, none of them can be said for a fact to have not occurred.

This argument, however, is nothing but a complete rejection of the scientific method. As I've said before, I've no problem with your model if you choose to accept that its non-scientific. I've no problem with your rejection of the scientific model, as long as you accept that said rejection is non-scientific in nature.

However, while you insist that it is scientific, then this appeal to fact is worse than meaningless. It is, in truth, undermining any claim to scientific credibility you may wish to have.

I can only refer you to the articles I listed, and suggest that - with your scientific ability - you follow links to other relevant sites.

While I appreciate the links, I'd much rather you summarised their arguments given that you are the one supporting them here. I've tried to do that in response to your questions, as have Scofflaw, Son Goku, Wicknight and others. I don't think reciprocity is an unreasonable request.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Wolfsbane you, just like JC, are a great one for responding to direct questions with links to Creationists websites.

Can you actually explain what both these articles are saying?

I second that. After all, you say you're convinced by the scientific evidence for Creation - whereas we aren't.

Presumably the articles you point to are convincing for you, otherwise why point us to them? If you don't understand them, how do you know they're relevant to the discussion at all?

cordially,
Scofflaw

2Scoops

Wicknight wrote:

Wolfsbane you, just like JC, are a great one for responding to direct questions with links to Creationists websites.

Can you actually explain what both these articles are saying?

It also doesn't help that all of these articles are reviews of literature. Ne'er an original investigation to be seen.

tasky

just bump to these..

http://www.bibleuniverse.com/creation/amazing-wonders.asp
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/creation/evolution.asp
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/creation/creationists.asp
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/creation/significant_statements.asp

robindch

tasky, bibleuniverse wrote:

a probability of accounting for life on earth of minus zero!

A probability which isn't just small, or tiny, or even zero, but MINUS ZERO!

Folks, with a coo-de-grass like that, I think that just about wraps it up for physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, paleontology, archeology, zoology, cosmology and all the other ologies and their isms. Discussion closed and yiz can all go home!

Move along, now.

J C

Originally Posted by Son Goku
No, what you're describing is abiogenesis and not evolution.

Robin
As a general comment, creationists seem almost genetically unable to distinguish between the two and, if I were you, I certainly wouldn't bother wasting my time trying to make the distinction clear when all the many previous efforts have failed.

Creationists ACCEPT that Evolutionary Theory divides the process by which life supposedly arose into Abiogenesis and Evolution.

The real problem for both Abiogenesis and Evolution ISN’T whether Creationists know what the words mean…….

……..it is whether Evolutionists know how Abiogenesis and Evolution supposedly occurred!!!!!:)

Please note that despite numerous requests from me to provide repeatably observable EVIDENCE for either process, NO evidence has been provided by the Evolutionists on this thread!!!:eek:

.......plenty of 'huffing and puffing' - but NO EVIDENCE!!!:D


Robin
Unless, of course, any creationists wants to chime in and claim that they understand the difference...?

Indeed, could I ask the Evolutionists to ‘chime in’ with ANY evidence that THEY may have for either Abiogenesis of Macro-Evolution!!!!:D


Robin
You may have luck with younger creationists, but the older group are, I believe, no longer able to learn -- not only because they find it intellectually difficult or confusing, but also because they've invested a fair amount of time in creationism

You are forgetting that ALL of the evidence and logic favours Creation over ‘Muck to Man Evolution’!!!

You are also forgetting that MOST Creation Scientists are former Evolutionist Scientists – who became Creationists BECAUSE they couldn’t provide ANY scientifically valid answers to questions posed by Creationists.

The real ‘died in the wool’ ones are the Evolutionists – who continue to maintain their faith in Evolution DESPITE the overwhelming evidence against it!!!!:eek:

Robin, you are a logical, highly intelligent engineer – so, tell me what logic drives you to accept Abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution – and what evidence do you have for their scientific validity????


bonkey
Are you saying that rock-folding is known to have occurred at the speeds you require it to occur at?

Almost every volcano produces RAPIDLY folded magma that RAPIDLY hardens into FOLDED igneous rock.

Equally, during the Mount St. Helens eruption, wet sedimentary layers were OBSERVED to fold RAPIDLY due to seismic pressures.


bonkey
Faulting occurs rapidly. In fact, faulting is what happens when processes occur too rapidly for folding.

Faulting is what occurs when hard rock BREAKS due to excessive tensile stress.
Because of the tensile weakness of ALL rock, folding is IMPOSSIBLE unless the rock is semi-plastic at the time.
The only known conditions that produces semi-plastic rock are very high temperatures in the case of metamorphic and igneous rocks and water infusion before sedimentary rock has set in the case of sedimentary rock.:D


bonkey
So faulted-features don't count as evidence that folding can occur in short timescales. Indeed, they support quite the opposite - they support the model that says if things move too rapidly, we get faulting and not folding, and thus evidence of folding implies a slow timescale

Faulted features show that solid rock has weak tensile strength – and high tensile folding CANNOT occur unless the rock is in a semi-plastic state (see my previous answer immediately above)!!!


bonkey
You are arguing that the alps formed far more rapidly. You argue for speeds that would require faulting, not folding. But thats not what the evidence says. The evidence says they were folded.

Folding can only occur when the rock is plastic or semi-plastic – and because rock remains plastic or semi-plastic for relatively short periods, folding therefore occurs very RAPIDLY.

Faulting can occur at any time with solid rock that is placed under high tensile stresses.

The evidence that the Alps are folded is indeed evidence of their RAPID formation!!!!


bonkey
the issue is can rock fold at that speed. The answer is no. It should fault at that speed.

The determining factor for folding ISN’T speed – it is the degree of plasticity of the rock. All solid rock will fault, even at slow speeds, when under tensile stress while plastic and semi-plastic rock will FOLD, even at high speeds!!!


bonkey
Show me the physics that say rock of the necessary types can fold at the speeds you require. Only then is there something to refute.
Scofflaw
Syn-sedimentary folding of rocks is indeed known, and occurs rapidly under gravity slumping of wet sediment piles

Bonkey talk to Scofflaw!!!:D

……as I have said folding ALWAYS occurs rapidly when semi-plastic rock is under high tensile stress due to combined vertical uplift and/or lateral compression forces.
Equally, slumping of wet sediment plies and their lateral compression while still not set (which occurred on a wide scale during Noah’s Flood) created many of the beautifully folded Sedimentary rock that can be observed on any Geology field trip!!!


Scofflaw
Creationism serves a religious agenda

Yes indeed, Creationism is still the dominant viewpoint amongst orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

However, Materialistic Evolutionism ALSO ‘serves a religious agenda’…….
……. for Atheism!!!!:D

The main difference between both philosophies is that Creationism is fully supported by empirical evidence and logic, while Evolutionism is completely unsupported and therefore is a purely faith-based BELIEF!!!!:)


Scofflaw
If God did not intend to mislead us, by making the world seem other than it is, then surely God's Creation itself is a better guide to what God actually did
……God DIDN'T mislead us - and all life, as we OBSERVE it, proclaims that it was Directly Created – while all Evolutionary stories eventually contradict themselves!!!:D


Scofflaw
Did it ever occur to you that this might have been the intention? That a primitive people were given a primitive story, and God expected them, as they grew more sophisticated, to find their way to a better understanding of the truth?

……..but Evolution it is NOT a ‘more sophisticated version’ of the Creation Account – it is actually a direct CONTRADICTION of Genesis.

……and for those of you still believing in the idea of ‘millions of years of Evolution’ – here is further proof that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed !!!

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

The Dinosaur and Human footprints actually cross over each other in the Dinosaur Valley State Park…….

…….so Dinosaurs DIDN’T exist 60 million years ago – they were around very recently indeed.

I sometimes think that Evolutionists wouldn't accept that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed EVEN if they were to be attacked by a Dinosaur on a field trip!!!!!:eek:


Bonkey
One of the most simple examples is the brittleness of rock. If you try moving it at the speeds you require, it will fracture. You'd end up with a large pile of shattered rock, not the mountains and valleys that we see today.

You are correct about the brittleness of rock – but time will not resolve this difficulty.
No matter how slowly you put solid rock under tension it will shear and it WON’T fold.

As I have previously said, the rock must ALWAYS be in a plastic / semi-plastic state in order for it to fold!!!!:D


Bonkey
there is no way the earth's structure could handle that rapid a change to its structure without long-lasting, violent, observeable reactions, if it didn't result (as it should) with the shattering of the crust from the sudden shift in weight

…..but we DO observe such gross ruptures along the various fault lines in ocean ridges and trenches as well as on land in rift valleys and mountain ranges!!!!

The Earth’s structure obviously handled this rapid transition – but the Earth’s biosphere had somewhat more difficulty in coping with it!!!!!:D


Bonkey
I think we can agree that in this case the Flood was not just a flood, but is rather a description for a whole sequence of events (uplift of mountains being one).

You seem to be arguing that this series of "unique events" is not bound by the current laws of physics. Indeed, for it to be unique, you require that it not be bound by the current laws of physics, else the possibility of a reoccurrence would exist.

The possibility of an exact reoccurrence doesn’t exist because, for example, the sub-terrainean waters are now only a tiny fraction of what they were prior to the Flood

However, the processes of Noah’s Flood WERE governed by the Laws of Science.......
......…..and now I’m off to cook myself some FRESH Dinosaur steaks ……..that the Palaeontologists have just brought in!!!

J C

robindch wrote:

A probability (of life occurring via materialistic processes)which isn't just small, or tiny, or even zero, but MINUS ZERO!

Folks, with a coo-de-grass like that, I think that just about wraps it up ...... ....Discussion closed and yiz can all go home!

Pretty much sums it up alright.......

.....it certainly would seem to be the Coup de Gráce for Evolution......

.......unless you can provide SOME evidence for Abiogenesis or Macro-Evolution!!!:eek:

Son Goku

robindch wrote:

A probability which isn't just small, or tiny, or even zero, but MINUS ZERO!

Minus zero! That must be like mega small and stuff.

J C wrote:

Creationists ACCEPT that Evolutionary Theory divides the process by which life supposedly arose into Abiogenesis and Evolution.

So Evolutionary Theory divides up into Evolutionary Theory and Abiogenesis, incredible!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Are you saying that rock-folding is known to have occurred at the speeds you require it to occur at?

Almost every volcano produces RAPIDLY folded magma that RAPIDLY hardens into FOLDED igneous rock.

Equally, during the Mount St. Helens eruption, wet sedimentary layers were OBSERVED to fold RAPIDLY due to seismic pressures.

Again, syn-depositional folding is easily distinguished from post-lithification folding, even with naked eye.

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Faulting occurs rapidly. In fact, faulting is what happens when processes occur too rapidly for folding.

Faulting is what occurs when hard rock BREAKS due to excessive tensile stress.
Because of the tensile weakness of ALL rock, folding is IMPOSSIBLE unless the rock is semi-plastic.
The only known conditions that produces semi-plastic rock are very high temperatures in the case of metamorphic and igneous rocks and water infusion before sedimentary rock has set in the case of sedimentary rock.:D

Hmm. No. The majority of tectonic folding (ie not syn-depositional, but after the rock has lithified) takes place under high temperatures and/or pressures, but JC's summary is rather misleading.

Tensile strength is not the only relevant factor in considering whether rock will deform rather than break - it's an interplay of brittle strength (tensile strength) and ductile strength (ductility).

Ductility increases with temperature, and tensile strength increases with pressure. Deep enough in the crust, rock is ductile enough to deform relatively easily, and strong enough not to break while doing so.

Given the role of depth and pressure, most deformation takes place deep in the crust. We see folded rocks at surface because kilometres of erosion have taken place.

The point about sedimentary rocks not folding tectonically is particularly misleading. Sedimentary rocks can of course be subjected to conditions that will allow them to fold - but then they are metamorphic rocks. It is correct to say that unaltered sedimentary rocks, if folded, were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition - but a sandstone can undergo folding conditions, and still look like a sandstone.

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

So faulted-features don't count as evidence that folding can occur in short timescales. Indeed, they support quite the opposite - they support the model that says if things move too rapidly, we get faulting and not folding, and thus evidence of folding implies a slow timescale

Faulted features show that solid rock has weak tensile strength – and high tensile folding CANNOT occur unless the rock is in a semi-plastic state (see my previous answer immediately above)!!!

Which is incorrect. The 'tensile strength' of rock increases massively with pressure, so all that is required is deep enough burial. Ductility, of course, is a time-dependent measure, so a rock under enough pressure can be folded 'cold' if the folding is slow enough.

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

You are arguing that the alps formed far more rapidly. You argue for speeds that would require faulting, not folding. But thats not what the evidence says. The evidence says they were folded.

Folding can only occur when the rock is plastic or semi-plastic – and because rock remains plastic or semi-plastic for relatively short periods, folding therefore occurs very RAPIDLY.

Faulting can occur at any time with solid rock that is placed under high tensile stresses.

The evidence that the Alps are folded is indeed evidence of their RAPID formation!!!!

Ah. I thought we were going somewhere with the misleading statements above, and indeed we were. Codswallop.

For rocks to fold rapidly, they must have very high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were heated sufficiently to allow incredibly rapid folding? None, as usual.

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

the issue is can rock fold at that speed. The answer is no. It should fault at that speed.

The determining factor for folding ISN’T speed – it is the degree of plasticity of the rock. All solid rock will fault, even at slow speeds, when under tensile stress while plastic and semi-plastic rock will FOLD, even at high speeds!!!

Rock under burial conditions is nothing like magma, as JC appears to envisage it being. It is more like steel than liquid.

So, again, this is entirely incorrect. It is based on using a single measure of rock strength (tensile), when the interplay between tensile and ductile strength is what is important.

Where ductile strength is low (below the brittle-ductile transition at c.10-15km), rocks will usually deform rather than shear, because the rocks have high ductility (bend easily) and high tensile strength (don't break).

However, any rock will deform ductilely if the pressure is high enough to give the rock sufficient tensile strength not to break. It's merely a question of how quickly the rock can deform, which is proportional to its ductility.

J C wrote:

bonkey wrote:

Show me the physics that say rock of the necessary types can fold at the speeds you require. Only then is there something to refute.

Scofflaw wrote:

Syn-sedimentary folding of rocks is indeed known, and occurs rapidly under gravity slumping of wet sediment piles

Bonkey talk to Scofflaw!!!:D

Hmm. Bonkey is talking about tectonic folding. I was talking there about syn-sedimentary folding.

These are two different things, which you either don't understand are different, or are conflating deliberately. As usual, it's hard to tell which, but as usual, you are incorrect in your assertions.

J C wrote:

……as I have said folding ALWAYS occurs rapidly when semi-plastic rock is under high tensile stress due to combined vertical uplift and/or lateral compression forces.

For a given value of "rapidly".

J C wrote:

Equally, slumping of wet sediment plies and their lateral compression while still not set (which occurred on a wide scale during Noah’s Flood) created many of the beautifully folded Sedimentary rock that can be observed on any Geology field trip!!!

Nope. Most of those "folded sedimentary rocks" are folded metamorphic rocks that still look like sedimentary rocks. Again, you appear not to understand that there is a difference.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Creationism serves a religious agenda

Yes indeed, Creationism is still the dominant viewpoint amongst orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

However, Materialistic Evolutionism ALSO ‘serves a religious agenda’…….
……. for Atheism!!!!:D

Again, for a given definition of "orthodox" - I assume we're using the one that means "those who believe in the same 'literal' interpretation of their Holy Books that I do". This remains a minority.

I also note you're not quite so quick to claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions in addition, but I suppose that was an oversight.

Throughout history, of course, the vast majority of people have believed all sorts of ridiculous and pernicious nonsense.

J C wrote:

The main difference between both philosophies is that Creationism is fully supported by empirical evidence and logic, while Evolutionism is completely unsupported and therefore is a purely faith-based BELIEF!!!!:)

It's hard to fault your level of belief. Should I ever need anyone to swear black is white, I shall know where to turn.

However, as we have to keep telling you, mere assertion does not prove anything.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

If God did not intend to mislead us, by making the world seem other than it is, then surely God's Creation itself is a better guide to what God actually did

……God DIDN'T mislead us - and all life, as we OBSERVE it, proclaims that it was Directly Created – while all Evolutionary stories eventually contradict themselves!!!:D

Well, it's amazing the number of Christian scientists who don't find that to be the case.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Did it ever occur to you that this might have been the intention? That a primitive people were given a primitive story, and God expected them, as they grew more sophisticated, to find their way to a better understanding of the truth?

……..but Evolution it is NOT a ‘more sophisticated version’ of the Creation Account – it is actually a direct CONTRADICTION of Genesis.

Yes. It is often the case that the story one tells children are actually completely untrue.

J C wrote:

……and for those of you still believing in the idea of ‘millions of years of Evolution’ – here is further proof that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed !!!

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm

The Dinosaur and Human footprints actually cross over each other in the Dinosaur Valley State Park…….

…….so Dinosaurs DIDN’T exist 60 million years ago – they were around very recently indeed.

Oh dear. Any other well-known legends you'd like to bring up? I swear you're behind the times even for a Creationist.

Analysis here.

J C wrote:

I sometimes think that Evolutionists wouldn't accept that Humans and Dinosaurs co-existed EVEN if they were to be attacked by a Dinosaur on a field trip!!!!!:eek:

It's not something that we get insurance for, anyway. Nor do we take anti-dragon tablets, or Sasquatch repellant.

J C wrote:

Bonkey wrote:

One of the most simple examples is the brittleness of rock. If you try moving it at the speeds you require, it will fracture. You'd end up with a large pile of shattered rock, not the mountains and valleys that we see today.

You are correct about the brittleness of rock – but time will not resolve this difficulty.
No matter how slowly you put solid rock under tension it will shear and it WON’T fold.

As I have previously said, the rock must ALWAYS be in a plastic / semi-plastic state in order for it to fold!!!!:D

And as said, you have only used one of the two relevant factors - the one that suits your case.

J C wrote:

Bonkey wrote:

there is no way the earth's structure could handle that rapid a change to its structure without long-lasting, violent, observeable reactions, if it didn't result (as it should) with the shattering of the crust from the sudden shift in weight

…..but we DO observe such gross ruptures along the various fault lines in ocean ridges and trenches as well as on land in rift valleys and mountain ranges!!!!

Indeed we do - and have explanations for them. They are incredibly slow processes - the Rift Valley, for example, widens at about a centimetre a year. In 6000 years, that would move things about 60 metres - and I think you are thinking of somewhat greater distances...

J C wrote:

Bonkey wrote:

I think we can agree that in this case the Flood was not just a flood, but is rather a description for a whole sequence of events (uplift of mountains being one).

You seem to be arguing that this series of "unique events" is not bound by the current laws of physics. Indeed, for it to be unique, you require that it not be bound by the current laws of physics, else the possibility of a reoccurrence would exist.

The possibility of an exact reoccurrence doesn’t exist because, for example, the sub-terrainean waters are now only a tiny fraction of what they were prior to the Flood

However, the processes of Noah’s Flood WERE governed by the Laws of Science.......
.......and now I'm off to cook myself a Dinosaur steak!!!!!.:D

I take it you've run out of ocean-stored lion, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Minus zero! That must be like mega small and stuff.

It is indeed micro-small to the point of being effectively ZERO!!!:D

The odds of life arising by materialistic processes are so small, as to be impossible!!

Dr. George Wald, Evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, says that it is IMPOSSIBLE (or zero):
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible."

Sir Julian Huxley, in his book Evolution in Action, gave the odds of a horse evolving as follows:
"The figure 1 with three million naughts after it: and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!...No one would bet on anything so improbable happening;"

....and there is a very good reason WHY nobody would want to bet on it ......
.......because it is IMPOSSIBLE!!:eek:

With odds of 10 to the power of 3,000,000 against the spontaneous evolution of the Horse and ONLY 10 to the power of 82 electrons in the known Universe, I think that we will have to wait some time for the winner of the 3.30 at Cheltenham to arrive via Materialistic Evolution!!!!:D

.........it would take at least a billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, .............
.................billion, YEARS!!!!!

......and the horse would probably still fall at the last fence!!!!:D

Son Goku wrote:

So Evolutionary Theory divides up into Evolutionary Theory and Abiogenesis, incredible!

Yes, I agree, Evolution and Abiogenesis are indeed incredible ....... because they are IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

.......so WHY do you continue to believe that Spontaneous Evolution occurred????........

........you are obviously a person of very great FAITH.......

........but unfortunately, faith in Evolution and Abiogenesis WON'T save you.

mossieh

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, syn-depositional folding is easily distinguished from post-lithification folding, even with naked eye.



Hmm. No. The majority of tectonic folding (ie not syn-depositional, but after the rock has lithified) takes place under high temperatures and/or pressures, but JC's summary is rather misleading.

Tensile strength is not the only relevant factor in considering whether rock will deform rather than break - it's an interplay of brittle strength (tensile strength) and ductile strength (ductility).

Ductility increases with temperature, and tensile strength increases with pressure. Deep enough in the crust, rock is ductile enough to deform relatively easily, and strong enough not to break while doing so.

Given the role of depth and pressure, most deformation takes place deep in the crust. We see folded rocks at durface because kilometres of erosion have taken place.

The point about sedimentary rocks not folding tectonically is particularly misleading. Sedimentary rocks can of course be subjected to conditions that will allow them to fold - but then they are metamorphic rocks. It is correct to say that unaltered sedimentary rocks, if folded, were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition - but a sandstone can undergo folding conditions, and still look like a sandstone.



Which is incorrect. The 'tensile strength' of rock increases massively with pressure, so all that is required is deep enough burial. Ductility, of course, is a time-dependent measure, so a rock under enough pressure can be folded 'cold' if the folding is slow enough.



Ah. I thought we were going somewhere with the misleading statements above, and indeed we were. Codswallop.

For rocks to fold rapidly, they must have very high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were heated sufficiently to allow incredibly rapid folding? None, as usual.



Rock under burial conditions is nothing like magma, as JC appears to envisage it being. It is more like steel than liquid.

So, again, this is entirely incorrect. It is based on using a single measure of rock strength (tensile), when the interplay between tensile and ductile strength is what is important.

Where ductile strength is low (below the brittle-ductile transition at c.10-15km), rocks will usually deform rather than shear, because the rocks have high ductility (bend easily) and high tensile strength (don't break).

However, any rock will deform ductilely if the pressure is high enough to give the rock sufficient tensile strength not to break. It's merely a question of how quickly the rock can deform, which is proportional to its ductility.



Hmm. Bonkey is talking about tectonic folding. I was talking there about syn-sedimentary folding.

These are two different things, which you either don't understand are different, or are conflating deliberately. As usual, it's hard to tell which, but as usual, you are incorrect in your assertions.



For a given value of "rapidly".



Nope. Most of those "folded sedimentary rocks" are folded metamorphic rocks that still look like sedimentary rocks. Again, you appear not to understand that there is a difference.



Again, for a given definition of "orthodox" - I assume we're using the one that means "those who believe in the same 'literal' interpretation of their Holy Books that I do". This remains a minority.

I also note you're not quite so quick to claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions in addition, but I suppose that was an oversight.

Throughout history, of course, the vast majority of people have believed all sorts of ridiculous and pernicious nonsense.



It's hard to fault your level of belief. Should I ever need anyone to swear black is white, I shall know where to turn.

However, as we have to keep telling you, mere assertion does not prove anything.



Well, it's amazing the number of Christian scientists who don't find that to be the case.



Yes. It is often the case that the story one tells children are actually completely untrue.



Oh dear. Any other well-known legends you'd like to bring up? I swear you're behind the times even for a Creationist.

Analysis here.



It's not something that we get insurance for, anyway. Nor do we take anti-dragon tablets, or Sasquatch repellant.



And as said, you have only used one of the two relevant factors - the one that suits your case.



Indeed we do - and have explanations for them. They are incredibly slow processes - the Rift Valley, for example, widens at about a centimetre a year. In 6000 years, that would move things about 60 metres - and I think you are thinking of somewhat greater distances...



I take it you've run out of ocean-stored lion, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw, I'd just like to say that your posts on this thread have been superb, It's great to see someone who has both the knowledge and the eloquence to express the scientific viewpoint reasonably and in terms understandable to a layman such as myself. Fair play.

Zombrex

I think we can add geology as another thing JC knows little about ...:rolleyes:

robindch

JC wrote:

Dr. George Wald, Evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, says that it is IMPOSSIBLE (or zero): "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible."

Just out of interest, JC, you've posted this one a few times before and I'm sure that somebody pointed out that there's a little condition in there (see the word "spontaneous") which suggests to most readers that he's not saying what you think he's saying.

So, I'm interested to know what you understand when you read something like this -- do you understand the conditional, but ignore it, or did you simply not notice it?

I'd like an honest answer, please, and not one filled with smilies and exclamation marks. Thanks.

J C

Scofflaw
syn-depositional folding is easily distinguished from post-lithification folding, even with naked eye.

Yes indeed, syn-depositional folding occurred while the rock was fully plastic while post-lithification folding occurred when it was semi-plastic!!!:)


Scofflaw
The majority of tectonic folding (ie not syn-depositional, but after the rock has lithified) takes place under high temperatures and/or pressures, but JC's summary is rather misleading.

There was nothing misleading about my comments.:(
I stated that rock must be plastic or semi-plastic in order to fold.
In the case of metamorphic and igneous rock, high temperatures are required for rock to become plastic. Pressures are irrelevant to folding ……unless they generate sufficient heat to transform the rock to a plastic or semi-plastic state!!!


Scofflaw
Tensile strength is not the only relevant factor in considering whether rock will deform rather than break - it's an interplay of brittle strength (tensile strength) and ductile strength (ductility).

Ductility increases with temperature, and tensile strength increases with pressure. Deep enough in the crust, rock is ductile enough to deform relatively easily, and strong enough not to break while doing so.

The key factor is plasticity !!!!


Scofflaw

Given the role of depth and pressure, most deformation takes place deep in the crust. We see folded rocks at the surface because kilometres of erosion have taken place.

Go to any volcano – and you will see new rock FOLDING at the surface!!!!


Scofflaw
The point about sedimentary rocks not folding tectonically is particularly misleading. Sedimentary rocks can of course be subjected to conditions that will allow them to fold - but then they are metamorphic rocks. It is correct to say that unaltered sedimentary rocks, if folded, were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition - but a sandstone can undergo folding conditions, and still look like a sandstone.

Once again, what I have said ISN’T misleading.

You actually agree with me that folded Sedimentary rocks, “were almost certainly folded shortly after deposition” – and Metamorphic rocks could either have been originally folded as sedimentary rocks or else they became subsequently folded at the high temperatures generated during Metamorphosis!!!!


Scofflaw
The 'tensile strength' of rock increases massively with pressure, so all that is required is deep enough burial.

Would Robin, as an engineer, care to comment on Scofflaw’s claim that a concrete bridge’s tensile strength would increase “massively” when pressurised by, for example, the weight of a lorry crossing it.

You could save a lot of reinforcing steel – if Scofflaw is correct!!!!!!


Scofflaw
Ductility increases with temperature….
Scofflaw
Ductility, of course, is a time-dependent measure, so a rock under enough pressure can be folded 'cold' if the folding is slow enough.

Scofflaw, talk to YOURSELF!!!!

Ductility increases with TEMPERATURE, full stop!!!
…..and it therefore ISN’T time dependent, nor does it allow folding of ‘cold’ rock – which would actually shear and fault, if put under tensile stress!!!

Scofflaw
Codswallop.
You said it, Scofflaw!!!!!


Scofflaw
For rocks to fold rapidly, they must have very high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were heated sufficiently to allow incredibly rapid folding?

For igneous or metamorphic rocks to fold AT ALL, they must have high ductility - which means they were extremely hot. The evidence that the Alps were originally heated sufficiently to allow folding, is there in the observed folding!!!!!

Indeed much of the Alps is made up of (originally very hot) IGNEOUS Rocks!!!!:cool:


Scofflaw
Bonkey is talking about tectonic folding. I was talking there about syn-sedimentary folding.

These are two different things, which you either don't understand are different, or are conflating deliberately

I accept that they are two different things.
As I have already said, very high temperatures are required in the case of tectonic folding of metamorphic and igneous rocks while water infusion before sedimentary rock has set is required in the case of syn-sedimentary folding of sedimentary rock.

In fairness I don’t think we disagree about this particular issue, other than the time required for tectonic folding......and a visit to any active volcano will settle this question.....in favour of RAPID folding!!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
Most of those "folded sedimentary rocks" are folded metamorphic rocks that still look like sedimentary rocks.

I agree that folding in Metamorphic rock could be due to either syn-folding or tectonic folding while sedimentary rock folding can only be due to syn-folding.


Originally posted by J C
Yes indeed, Creationism is still the dominant viewpoint amongst orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Scofflaw
Again, for a given definition of "orthodox" - I assume we're using the one that means "those who believe in the same 'literal' interpretation of their Holy Books that I do". This remains a minority.

No, I was referring to practically ALL of the Mainstream Christian Churches as well the vast majority of Jews and Muslims.

The Apostles and Nicene Creeds proclaim God as Maker/Creator and they are STILL mandatory Articles of Faith for all Roman Catholics and within the Anglican and Lutheran Churches as well as the Orthodox Denominations – thereby making all of these Churches officially Creationist Churches.

Equally, Reformed Churches largely believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis thereby making these Churches Creationist Churches also.


Scofflaw
Throughout history, of course, the vast majority of people have believed all sorts of ridiculous and pernicious nonsense.

It is indeed, amazing what the fallen mind of Man can dream up.

Were you thinking perhaps of Evolution as part of the “ridiculous and pernicious nonsense” which people have believed???!!!:D


Scofflaw
I also note you're not quite so quick to claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions in addition, but I suppose that was an oversight.

The people most entitled to “claim the intellectual weight of all primitive religions” are actually the Evolutionists!!!:)

The ‘primitive religions’ largely believed that the ‘forces of nature’ were Gods – and they were thus a fore-runner of Evolutionism, which also accords ‘God-like’ qualities to matter by believing that ‘muck can spontaneously morph into Man’!!!!:D


Scofflaw
Yes. It is often the case that the story one tells children are actually completely untrue.

Yes indeed, children DO enjoy fairytales of both the Fairy and Evolutionary varieties!!!!:D
One of the best stories is the one about the amphibian Frog that turned into a Prince after about 200 million years!!!!!!!:D


Referenced by Scofflaw
Talkorigins comment on the apparent presence of Human and Dinosaur footprints on the same limestone bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas:-
“This site clearly demonstrated that dinosaurs were capable of making elongated, even "man-like" impressions.”

I see, when confronted with incontrovertible forensic evidence that Man lived contemporaneously with Dinosaurs, the Evolutionists decide that the ‘Man like’ footprints were made by a Dinosaur with Human feet!!!!

…….I wonder would an Evolutionist acquit an accused person whose footprints were found at the scene of a crime because they COULD have been made by a DINOSAUR with ‘Man-like’ footprints???????:D


Scofflaw
They are incredibly slow processes - the Rift Valley, for example, widens at about a centimetre a year.

Yes, many such processes are CURRENTLY very slow, due to relative tectonic inactivity.

However, mountain building CAN be very rapid – for example a new 300 metre ‘replacement’ mountain has ‘grown’ out of the sea to replace Krakatoa, which blew up in 1883.

Called Anak Krakatau, this island has grown in height at an average rate of 13 centimetres PER WEEK since the 1950s – or over 6.5 METRES per year!!!!
Reports in 2005 indicate that activity at Anak Krakatau is increasing, with fresh lava flows adding to the island's area.:cool:

At 6.5 metres per year you could produce a mountain with the height of Mount Everest in less than 1500 years!!

Scofflaw
I take it you've run out of ocean-stored lion, then?

Yes, it was very nice, while it lasted!!!!!!:)

……but I do prefer FRESH Dinosaur meat, whenever the Palaeontologists ‘get lucky’ and find a partially fossilised specimen to bring home!!!!:D

J C

Originally Posted by JC
Dr. George Wald, Evolutionist and Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, says that it is IMPOSSIBLE (or zero): "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible."

robindch wrote:

Just out of interest, JC, you've posted this one a few times before and I'm sure that somebody pointed out that there's a little condition in there (see the word "spontaneous") which suggests to most readers that he's not saying what you think he's saying.

So, I'm interested to know what you understand when you read something like this -- do you understand the conditional, but ignore it, or did you simply not notice it?

I'd like an honest answer, please, and not one filled with smilies and exclamation marks. Thanks.

I don't remember quoting Dr Wald before.

Anyway, I do not accept that the word 'spontaneous' is a 'conditional'.
It clearly is a 'function' of Materialistic Abiogenesis.

By ruling out Spontanous Generation, Materialistic Abiogenesis would also seem to become untenable - but Theistic Biogenesis and Evolution would remain Possibilities.....

......I did as you asked - and I refrained from using a smiley!!!!

.....but I did allow myself a few exclamation marks!!!

....and now that I have answered your question could you answer mine .....
Please tell me what logic drives you to accept Abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution – and what evidence do you have for their scientific validity???


Scofflaw
It's hard to fault your level of belief.

But my belief in God and in Jesus Christ’s ability to save me is PUNY in comparison with the ENORMOUS faith required to believe that muck will spontaneously evolve into Man!!!!

My faith is only the size of a Mustard Seed!!!

……while Evolutionists possess a faith of gargantuan proportions!!!!