Page 8 of 17 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#80569 - 05/03/06 11:56 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
Quote:

They were not stated to be sedimentary rocks. More typically, would be igneous, such as granite.





You wrote...

Quote:

Suddenly, one night, unexpectedly, a massive mudslide engulfs the village, and it is buried beneath thousands of tons of mud and rock. Four thousand years later, due to local shifting of the land, the village is exposed, and archaeologists investigate. They attempt to determine the age of the village. They use radiometric dating of the rocks surrounding the village, and come up with a figure in the billions of years. They conclude that the village MUST be the same age, BECAUSE it was encased in the rock and earth. Were they correct?





If you weren't asking about the dating of sedimentary rocks, why do you think the geologists would conclude that the obviously moved rocks surrounding the village dated the village?

/Bevin

Top
#80570 - 05/04/06 12:37 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
David Koot Offline
Craftsman

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
Quote:

bevin said:

If you weren't asking about the dating of sedimentary rocks, why do you think the geologists would conclude that the obviously moved rocks surrounding the village dated the village?

/Bevin




Please refer to post #216103. BTW where do you find any statement that the rocks were sedimentary? Please quote it.


Edited by David Koot (05/04/06 12:43 AM)

Top
#80571 - 05/04/06 12:59 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
David Koot Offline
Craftsman

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
Quote:

bevin said:

You look for evidence of this happening - and WHAT DO YOU KNOW - you almost always find it, and you never find anything that invalidates this prediction.




Plate tectonics is one self-evident mechanism for such an occurrence, although not the only mechanism.

Quote:


A shining example of success for the long-age evolutionary model and a stunning set back for the short-age creationists who have no explanation for either phenomona - old-over-fossil-over-young or young-over-fossil-over-old.





Actually, no. The very phenomenon you are referring to, has been used to refute long-age evolution. I have seen that done in a live presentation by a geologist, including pictures of the very type of thing you are referring to. Will see if I can get in contact with that geologist. I do notice that your response is presented in terms of generalities and rhetoric.

Top
#80572 - 05/04/06 04:14 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
Quote:

Plate tectonics is one self-evident mechanism for such an occurrence, although not the only mechanism




Plate tectonics is NOT self-evident. It took a lot of research and exacting studies to verify it.

Give ONE OTHER plausible explanation backed by an equivalent level of study.

Quote:

I do notice that your response is presented in terms of generalities and rhetoric.




ROFLOL - I am giving specific situations. You are not giving a single one. Instead you are saying that you are waiting for the cavalry to arrive and giving hypothetical pieces of nonsense about geologists confusing the dating of mud slides with dating the thing they engulf.

I see you say you are an evangelist. I hope you aren't standing up in public and talking such ignorant nonsense.

/Bevin

Top
#80573 - 05/04/06 04:31 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
Maybe you want specific instances of inversions...

http://www.virtualexplorer.com.au/journal/2000/01/betts/background.html

http://www.palmod.uni-bremen.de/FB5/geochron/basin_fill.htm

http://www.nps.gov/whsa/Geology%20of%20White%20Sands/Chap01/Chap01%20Main.html

Look for the reference to meteors in
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98155/chp5.htm

Quote:

Antarctic search for meteorites. Ralph Harvey, Case Western Reserve University. Since 1976, ANSMET (the Antarctic Search for Meteorites program) has recovered more than 9,000 meteorite specimens from locations along the Transantarctic Mountains. Antarctica is the world's premier meteorite hunting ground for two reasons.

Although meteorites fall in a random fashion all over the globe, the likelihood of finding a meteorite is enhanced if the background material is plain and the accumulation rate of terrestrial sediment is low, making the east antarctic ice sheet the perfect medium.
Along the margins of this ice sheet, ice flow is sometimes blocked by mountains, nunataks, and other obstructions, exposing slow-moving or stagnant ice to the fierce katabatic winds. These winds, in turn, ablate away the ice, leaving behind a lag deposit of meteorites representing those that were sprinkled throughout the volume of ice lost to the wind. When such a process continues for a long enough time (10s or 100s of thousands of years), the concentration of meteorites can be spectacular.






/Bevin

Top
#80574 - 05/04/06 07:04 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
David Koot Offline
Craftsman

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
Quote:

bevin said:
I see you say you are an evangelist. I hope you aren't standing up in public and talking such ignorant nonsense.

/Bevin




I recall reading the ground rules for participation on this Origins forum. I also recall Bravus commenting that he felt positive about the tone of the discussions, and so was opening up this forum more. However, your comments above, are ridicule and are demeaning, and should be unacceptable on a forum like this. If you are unwilling to be civil, perhaps you should take a break from this discussion. Or, if you will not, then I would ask Bravus as moderator to keep this discussion on a positive note.

Top
#80575 - 05/04/06 07:05 AM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
David Koot Offline
Craftsman

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
Quote:

bevin said:
Maybe you want specific instances of inversions




It is good to provide cites. As for meteorites, that has not been an issue in this discussion so far, other than your reference to Hornbacher.

Top
#80576 - 05/04/06 12:31 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
It was you who started down the road with

Quote:

I do notice that your response is presented in terms of generalities and rhetoric.




If you don't like the retort, stick to the topic.

So far the following issues are lacking a short-age explanation

A short-age explanation for
  • meteor distribution in Antarctica
  • Hawaii
  • The distribution of fossils between South America and South Africa
  • The distribution of fossils into distinct groupings that the evolutionists explain by their living millions of years apart
  • Inversions
  • The White Cliffs of Dover
  • The magnetic fields imbedded in the rocks
  • and more


/Bevin

Top
#80577 - 05/04/06 04:27 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: ]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
Quote:

I would ask Bravus as moderator to keep this discussion on a positive note.




Bravus has already done so in private mail to me

Top
#80578 - 05/04/06 05:28 PM Re: Strict Biblical Literalism on Scientific Matters: Is It Tenable? [Re: Mandy]
David Koot Offline
Craftsman

Registered: 03/13/06
Posts: 3513
Loc: N38d14.516m, W122d37.982m
In regard to your post # 216092, you seem to assert that fossilization has in fact been observed to be CURRENTLY in process. Was that your intention? If so, please provide cites of observations supporting same. Bravus' cites pertained to fossilization believed to have occurred within the past few thousand years, but not actually occurring at present.

Secondly, you assert that there are "other ways" than C-14 of dating ORGANIC remains or fossils. We are not talking about rocks here. In regard to fossilized organic remains, please state the 'other ways' you are referring to. That is, dating the remains themselves, not the surrounding rocks or based on any other external items or factors, but the actual remains themselves.

Top
Page 8 of 17 < 1 2 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16 17 >


Moderator:  Bravus, Bravus 
Our Store


SEARCH OUR SITE

Custom Search
30 days FREE

This full membership income helps pay for hosting, advertising, domain names, software support etc etc
Shout Box

The Chat Room

Come Chat with others,
open 24/7

Who's Online
61 registered (aldona, Beryl, Bravus, Bruno, c freeland, carolaa, CoAspen, Coulsty, Curly, darlene, dgrimm60, Dottie, fca, fccool, forgie, Gerry Cabalo, Gladussee, Jerry D Thomas, John317, Kevin H, Kountzer, lazarus, LifeHiscost, Lineman, Liz, Loren Fenton, LynnDel, max, Maxi, melvin mccarty, mikeyswen79, Nan, Neil D, Nightingale, Norman, olger, pkrause, Planey, Redwood, Robert, Sapphire, SMAN, Taylor, vern, 17 invisible), 420 Guests and 233 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Featured Member
Registered: 05/19/07
Posts: 130
Top Posters (30 Days)
Redwood 762
John317 702
Shane 425
Neil D 370
Robert 286
Bravus 284
carolaa 275
fccool 214
rush4hire 175
BobRyan 171
Stan Jensen 171
Taylor 131
olger 127
Amelia 124
Gail 102
pkrause 100
Nan 97
Lineman 84
Liz 82
B Humble 73
Top Posters
Amelia 18428
Shane 16950
Robert 15388
Gail 13579
Neil D 13197
John317 10264
Redwood 8970
Gerry Cabalo 7419
Naomi 7196
Gregory Matthews 7111
Bravus 7070
Nan 6025
Shirley 5292
ChildofChrist 5048
cricket 4890
bevin 4699
LifeHiscost 4156
Stan Jensen 3919
D. Allan 3883
dgrimm60 3594
Newest Members
SarahAnne, kayyak, veggiesmile, parsongarlic, babydeed
2962 Registered Users