Re: A question to The Creationists, again

On Jun 6, 4:54 pm, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 6, 7:11 am, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
in article 1180816650.884172.187...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx at richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
on 6/2/07 1:37 PM:

On Jun 2, 9:08 pm, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
in article 1180386379.677100.228...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mark
Nutter at manutte...@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/28/07 2:06 PM:
On May 28, 4:47 pm, George Evans <georg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
in article 1180252798.907141.201...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
rich...@xxxxxxxxxx at rich...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/27/07 12:59 AM:
<snip>

The hanging wall is stated to be Precambrian because it contains evidence
left by bacteria and blue-green algae.
And don't forget the radioisotopes, the surrounding geology, and so on.
Sedimentary rock is not dated radiometrically.
You've been corrected on this already. Some sedimentary structures are the
product of volcanic action. These can be dated radiometrically. It is these

datable horizons which are used to provide absolute dates for sedimentary
structures.
That's crazy. What are you talking about?

RF, I think you *may* be crazy if you think this idiot
has the capacity to learn this. You keep trying to
empty a swimming pool into a thimble.

Let's spell it out in simple words for you.
Volcanos erupt.
They spew our a load of ash and other materials over the landscape.
These materials can be absolutely dated because they are metamorphic.

I think you mean _igneous_. (Actually I've heard that volcanic
ejecta are "igneous on the way up and sedimentary on the way down.")

Of course they are igneous! Let's call it a senior moment


Some of those materials land in places where deposition of sediment is
taking place.
As more sediment is added through normal depositional processes, the
eruption is recorded as a layer of datable material in otherwise
undatable sediments when the normal processes of diagenesis turn the
sedimentary layers into rock.

This is pretty elementary geology.

Definitely covered in the introductory classes.



<snip>

And how could I be ignoring the presence of plate collision when I propose
that as the cause for the subsequent compression event that piles up most of
the Precambrian deposit and nudged the final 50 miles.
So you are asserting that a flood can not only pile up sediment which when
compacted is 6km thick, but also displace it by 50 miles.
Perhaps you could take us over some of the details of this scenario, in
particular the apparent paradox that the flood which has deposited the
sediments is also invoked to displace those sediments.
I don't think it's the right time.

So you have no model to offer.
As you have no alternative explanation for the evidence and
demonstrate a fundamental lack of understand of anything more than the
very simplest concepts in geology, let alone physics, why on earth
should anyone reject the standard model of geology and accept your non-
existent model?
I don't know who you think I am, but I am definitely not in the habit of
ignoring facts.
I'm afraid that you are being rather less than truthful.
Well, Richard, maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. I guess that what
juries are for.

Juries are explicitly told *not* to seek more information
than is spoon-fed to them, just like a lot of church
congregations.



What the hell have juries to do with it?
You are ignoring most of the facts. You are making no effort to find
out on what basis of fact the standard geological model is based, and
when presented with facts simply ignoring them.

To restore some of your snips:

I posted "Those facts can easily be found by visiting the links which
have been
provided to you on numerous occasions. Geologists have looked at those
facts - the way the strata are disposed, the evidence of movement in
the form of a gouge layer, the presence of and disposition of faults
in the structure, the mechanical and chemical properties of rock under
pressure, and so on - and interpreted them in a particular way. If you
disagree with the conclusions reached by those geologists, fine. Learn
something about geology, read the scientific papers and formulate an
alternative hypothesis, identify the predictions made by that
hypothesis and go and look at the structure to see if your hypothesis
is falsified. "

Have you bother to do any research? If not, you are ignoring facts.

Others, on your side, have testified to that effect.
Not in all cases, I'm afraid. It seems that the more one challenges
creationists, the more dishonest their arguments become.
Why not meditate on that?
Richard, in a lot of ways I am just an average American guy. And you may be
on the brink of understanding the reason that evolution is not doing as well
here as you think it should.

So the average American guy is ignorant about science and refuses to
learn. This is a problem for all sciences, not just evolutionary
science.

It's worse than that: The AAG is *misinformed* about science.



By the way, what does plate tectonics have to do with evolution? This
thread has been about geology, not evolution. Several posters have
explained to you that evolutionary theory does not depend on the
fossil record for evidence, and that even if we had no evidence it
would still be the best explanation for the diversity of living
organisms on this planet. If you don't believe us, read Darwin's "The
Origin of Species". You can download it on-line. He bases his argument
almost entirely on existing organisms, not fossils.

You don't engage in discussion very well. All I
get from you is a flat presentation.

I've given you with explanations and listed evidence or posted links
to where such evidence can be found.

What is wrong, for example, with my advice to learn about geology?
I've given you the title of a well-written and accessible book on the
subject. Why not read it? Or is the "average American guy" incapable
of reading a book?

Your standard response is to say that all geologists and
palaeontologists are ignorant, stupid and dishonest. As a
palaeontologists I think that I am entitled to take exception to that.
Or do you think that denigrating the professional integrity of large
numbers of scientists is okay if you're an "average American guy"?

Your attitude seems to be, All of you
should just listen to what the scientists say because they are the wise
ones.

I've repeatedly offered you advice on where to find the information on
which the standard geological model is based. I've given quite lengthy
explanations of how the evidence is interpreted. I have never asked
you to accept anything just because scientists say so. However, when
you denigrate the work of those scientists without even bothering to
find out the basis on which they form their conclusions, and insist
that they should accept your alternative model which you cannot even
formulate, I think that any rational person is entitled to get a bit
annoyed.

That line is getting old and stale. We see scientist as a group joining
bandwagons like global warming, not really saying anything that sounds
authentic.

I suggest that if you think that you have not done much research into
the subject, but are relying for information on anti-science blogs.

If you want to get a good picture of the evidence in favour of global
warming, I can suggest a number of reliable sources.

And there doing this apparently unaware that we know that the
maximum ocean level rise expected in around 2 feet.

Where on earth did you get that information from?

By the way, a rise in ocean levels of 2 feet will be catastrophic for
very large numbers of people, many of them already living in extreme
poverty. Don't you think that it should be your duty as a Christian to
do what you can to try to avoid such a catastrophe?

Not his brand of Christianity. He only worries about
Americans, but only Christian Americans, and only
those Christian Americans who speak English.

How can we take people
seriously who have such little respect for us as to think we are going to
fall for a half baked presentation like that.

So what presentation by climate scientists on the subject of global
warming have you read?

Or are you relying on what you see on the TV?

Or does the "average American guy" think that television is the best
source for scientific data?

In his case, either that or the pulpit.

Scientists are as likely to be fools as wise men.

Quite so. But as scientists when engaged in the processes of science
present their evidence and argument in a structured and coherent form,
it makes it much easier to spot the fools.

Noelie

--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' for over 47 years."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question to The Creationists, again
    ... most of the Precambrian deposits leading to the thick section to the west. ... The precambrian sediments contain few fossils, ... virtually everything we know about geology and physics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A question to The Creationists, again
    ... And don't forget the radioisotopes, the surrounding geology, and so on. ... sediments is also invoked to displace those sediments. ... As you have no alternative explanation for the evidence and ... in a lot of ways I am just an average American guy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: THE THREE BEARS OF PLATE TECTONICS
    ... > It sneaks off above the mantle, ... I'm not asking where the sediments came from, ... (on the Continental crust ... > You've renounced any good knowledge of of Himalayn geology. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A question to The Creationists, again
    ... The thickness of gouge in the San Andreas fault is very obvious even seen ... adjacent blocks of rock. ... which they intruded is older than they are, and that sediments ... Department of Geology. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bad science is still science
    ... So when are the sediments formed? ... So how *do* you explain massive impact craters buried more than a thousand ... You have no evidence for what you are proposing. ... scientists I know, and I would hazard a guess that I know rather more ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading