12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58against my better judgment I looked at the site.which at first glance seemed ok. But like everything else at that garbage site first glances aint gonna prove much.
Have any of you guys heard about this amazing ice-core related story?
The planes that landed on Greenland in 1942 and were recovered recently from under 250 feet of ice? How consistent is this with the assumptions geologists have made about ice accumulation rates?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1026glacier_girl.asp
(I know Froggy says that this is a 'garbage site', but can he really think they just made up this story?)
so I checked a bit and was rewarded somewhat by the history of the flight in question as it reminded me of just how colled Noah would be after spending a year at 28000 feet.
but that didnt answer the "core" of you argument.
This does however:
Weather records show that the locale of the "Lost Squadron" gets about two meters (6.6 feet) of snow per year. Therefore, the 'problem' addressed by this argument (which is supposed to be solvable only by accepting a Young Earth paradigm) is nonexistent.
The planes landed on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since then. Glaciers are not used for ice core dating because their movement throws the measurement off.
As a conclusion, the dating method did not work correctly in this case because ignorant creationists botched it. In the hands of experts, it works
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58You can't even see a high-school physics problem, much less a college one.
Well Kelly, I think you said it all, and very well. When Kneverknight even used the word 'assume' a few posts back, he made my simple point for me. Scientists take their picture in the only time they have (the present) and then assume uniformitarianism, the idea that things always were as they are now (cruise control, I guess.)
This kind of assumption would never fly in any physics lab I ever took when I was getting my BS in geology.
I'm done with the cars, served it's point anyways, to show that yes we can glean meaningful information without direct observation of a past event.
So, your "nobody was around to observe 130 million years ago" says nothing.
Besides that, your statement is meaningless in a deeper way, coming from a young-earth proponent, it is a tautology, since there was no 130 million years ago, according to you, get my drift?
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightSir, if your point was served by making my point about the necessity of assumptions in determining any past event, then I am grateful. Extrapolations, like the ones you used for cars going any which way, are only as good as the verifiable consistency of the actual data you have.
You can't even see a high-school physics problem, much less a college one.
I'm done with the cars, served it's point anyways, to show that yes we can glean meaningful information without direct observation of a past event.
So, your "nobody was around to observe 130 million years ago" says nothing.
Besides that, your statement is meaningless in a ...[text shortened]... is a tautology, since there was no 130 million years ago, according to you, get my drift?
You didn't show anything to me. Except that you wont even acknowledge the assumptions that are made by long age believers.
By the way, it wasn't me who mentioned anything about 130 million years ago. But I do concur that since there were no observers in the beginning, whether it was 50 billion or 5000 years ago, all we can go by are speculation and deduction, and these can only lead to theories, not facts.
I freely declare that after looking at all the facts, using a bit of imagination (thought experiments), and then finding what I believe God has revealed to us, I am convinced that we live in a young earth.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompI take the point of the article to demonstrate that the regularly made assumptions of your typical uniformitarian scientists are not reliable.
against my better judgment I looked at the site.which at first glance seemed ok. But like everything else at that garbage site first glances aint gonna prove much.
so I checked a bit and was rewarded somewhat by the history of the flight in question as it reminded me of just how colled Noah would be after spendi ...[text shortened]... ectly in this case because ignorant creationists botched it. In the hands of experts, it works
That's all.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58Oh please, you just look worse and worse.
Sir, if your point was served by making my point about the necessity of assumptions in determining any past event, then I am grateful. Extrapolations, like the ones you used for cars going any which way, are only as good as the verifiable consistency of the actual data you have.
You didn't show anything to me. Except that you wont even acknowledge t ...[text shortened]... finding what I believe God has revealed to us, I am convinced that we live in a young earth.
The point was we can indeed derive fact from unobserved events by extrapolation.
We don't see electrons leave the cathode inside our monitor but we can calculate when they must have left from the time of arrival at the phosphor screen.
Nice try at obfuscation.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by telerionThanks a lot Tel! It took me several minutes to go back and find the context of my original post, where I claimed to be a geologist.
Originally posted by chin
[b]I'm a geologist. The evidence for a worldwide aquatic cataclysm is everywhere! But you asked for 'new' evidence and mine is somewhere's around 6000 years old.
You should expect credibility-challenging. You made no argument. Therefore I could not attack the 'merits.' Instead you made an unsubstantiated ...[text shortened]... gree than I am![/b]
My 'credibility alarm' has been going off through your entire post.
[/b]
When I graduated with my BS, oh so long ago (but not very long ago in 'geologic time'😉, and then when I was hired to work in a gold exploration field camp in SE Alaska, I often wondered "Am I now a geologist? What is it that makes one officially?" Well, now I know. I guess I'm not. But do tell; am I more of a geologist than you are buddy?
But my claim that the evidence for a world-wide flood is everywhere, is not simply based on my BS. (....watch it!) My degree did however, prepare me to study claims and recognize good science.
given that the consensus among the thousands of practicing geologists from accredited institutions is that the Grand Canyon formed over eons, why don't you demonstrate what is so clearly obvious? Do you think that these thousands of geologists are bent on convering up the truth?
Not necessarily. I think some do recognize the deficiencies in the evidence, but are unmotivated to say so. Most others are probably just rote-minded students. They exist in every discipline: Taking in what their professors tell them, memorizing what they're given, and then spewing it out in their own classrooms later. It's a viscious cycle.
Furthermore, I would rather be like Copernicus who dared to disagree with all of the astronomers of his day when the current teaching didn't make sense to him.
No buddy, I am not now claiming to be a Copernicus!
I will try to find time to argue some of the other points Tel. I appreciate your willingness to look at them with an open mind.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYes, those calculations are based on the assumption of the speed of the electrons. A perfectly valid assumption in such a closed system. But to relate such an example to the millions of years of unknown history is ludicrous.
Oh please, you just look worse and worse.
The point was we can indeed derive fact from unobserved events by extrapolation.
We don't see electrons leave the cathode inside our monitor but we can calculate when they must have left from the time of arrival at the phosphor screen.
Nice try at obfuscation.
Nuf said.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightYou are done with the cars?
You can't even see a high-school physics problem, much less a college one.
I'm done with the cars, served it's point anyways, to show that yes we can glean meaningful information without direct observation of a past event.
So, your "nobody was around to observe 130 million years ago" says nothing.
Besides that, your statement is meaningless in a ...[text shortened]... is a tautology, since there was no 130 million years ago, according to you, get my drift?
I just showed you why cars moving toward one another is one type
of event while seeing cars move away is another. You are not going
to talk about the post where I covered those in detail?
Kelly
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58Wrong.
Yes, those calculations are based on the assumption of the speed of the electrons. A perfectly valid assumption in such a closed system. But to relate such an example to the millions of years of unknown history is ludicrous.
Nuf said.
You can duck and weave all you want, the point remains: we can indeed draw valid conclusions from events in the past.
12 Jul 05
Originally posted by chinking58Hey, I lived in SE Alaska for about eight years as kid. Mostly out on Prince of Wales Island. Anyhoo . . .
Thanks a lot Tel! It took me several minutes to go back and find the context of my original post, where I claimed to be a geologist.
When I graduated with my BS, oh so long ago (but not very long ago in 'geologic time'😉, and then when I was hired to work in a gold exploration field camp in SE Alaska, I often wondered "Am I now a geologist? What i ...[text shortened]... ome of the other points Tel. I appreciate your willingness to look at them with an open mind.
As for your status as geologist, I suppose you could fairly claim to have been a geology tech when you were doing the summer work or whatever after you graduated. Usually though I think of someone with a PhD or working towards one in the field, or some one who has an advanced degree and extensive outside work in the field (like it's their full-time career). Take the US Forest Service for example, they hire people all the time who have undergraduate degrees. These people may be called GS-5 Geology Technician according to government payroll, but I think this hardly elevates them to the level of "Geologist."
In an analogous manner, my step-father works for the US Forest doing entymology. Despite his BS and extensive work in forestry and his advanced training in regional bugs, he never calls himself an entymologist. The only people he has spoken of with that title are all PhD's.
That said, I that even the basic education you had in geology so long ago places you well ahead of me in terms of knowledge of geology.
Until now the claim you made to me of evidence was solely based upon your authority as a geologist. I look forward to your selecting one of the arguments from your post to KK, so that we can discuss it. While I again concede your superior training, I am confident that your claim is so infamous that there are plenty of resources that set the record straight. Moreover, I expect some help from other RHPer's with training in the area. So when you have the first piece evidence you would like to offer me and discuss, please post it. If it includes supporting evidence from a website or article please cite this.
Thank you.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionIrrelevant aside: What was Sir John Hick's degree? (Yeah, I know, that was a long time ago....)
Hey, I lived in SE Alaska for about eight years as kid. Mostly out on Prince of Wales Island. Anyhoo . . .
As for your status as geologist, I suppose you could fairly claim to have been a geology tech when you were doing the summer wo ...[text shortened]... evidence from a website or article please cite this.
Thank you.
12 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayOK, I'll try again one more time.
You are done with the cars?
I just showed you why cars moving toward one another is one type
of event while seeing cars move away is another. You are not going
to talk about the post where I covered those in detail?
Kelly
Car A is going East at 60 kph. Car B is going West at 60 kph. (Cruise control)
Mr. Smith looks out his window when the cars are travelling towards each other separated by 100 meters and calculates they will meet in the middle. You don't seem to have a problem with accepting this as valid.
Mr. Jones looks out his window when the cars are 100 meters apart, but now headed away from each other, and calculates that they have met in the middle. This is just as valid as Mr. Smith's calculation.
I can do no more ...