Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

To Shuny and other geologically literate folks here. Pennsylvanian cyclothems.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To Shuny and other geologically literate folks here. Pennsylvanian cyclothems.

    Folks,

    I realize that no amount of data will convince a YEC presuppositional apologist, but I'm just interested in how YECs explain the Pennsylanian Cyclothems?

    Insults and drive-by poopings are welcomed.

    K54

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothems
    Last edited by klaus54; 12-23-2014, 01:44 PM. Reason: typos!!!

  • #2
    You need this explained? It strikes me as a non-issue to YEC - depending on the school. Sea shores change.

    Other than random trolling, was there a point to this?

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #3
      Nuthin but the Flud waters sloshin' back and forth, probably concurrent with the always miraculous "apparent aging".

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        You need this explained? It strikes me as a non-issue to YEC - depending on the school. Sea shores change.

        Other than random trolling, was there a point to this?
        It's a LOT more complicated than that, Teal.

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by phank View Post
          Nuthin but the Flud waters sloshin' back and forth, probably concurrent with the always miraculous "apparent aging".
          Apparent historyin'.

          The stake to the heart of YECs.

          K54

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            You need this explained? It strikes me as a non-issue to YEC - depending on the school. Sea shores change.

            Other than random trolling, was there a point to this?
            Yes, there is a point to this. Your view of 'non-issue to YEC,' and whether it needs to be explained is clearly avoidance of the overwhelming evidence of millions of years of cyclic deposition of Sandstone beach and windblown deposits, shale and some limestone, and coal deposited in swamp deposits of vast forests. These deposits cover many cycles, contain fossils of standing forests, meandering rivers and streams, mud cracks and raindrop marks repeated in individual shale layers over hundreds of feet of the layers of rock, fossils of animal fossils and their tracks in the mud, and many other geomorphic features and evidence of animal life related to different environments in individual discrete layers in thousands of feet strata, just as we see today.

            By the way, meandering river and stream formations are common throughout the geologic column, but what is unique to the Pennsylvanian and Mississippian cyclothem deposits is that these river systems cover vast regions and resemble the tropical river systems of the Amazon and the the Congo where similar environments exist.

            I worked in this region for about twelve years mapping soils and geology. I even observed layers of soil formation in the rock layers, including root and worm castes, fossil roots and soil structure, especially under the coal seems. I mapped similar soils forming today in and around the Florida swamps along the Saint Johns River.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-24-2014, 07:27 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              You need this explained? It strikes me as a non-issue to YEC - depending on the school. Sea shores change.

              Other than random trolling, was there a point to this?
              YEC argument number 73 -- it's not important.

              Presuppositionalist apologists... Gotta love 'em.

              K54

              P.S. And if you present a difficult issue for creationists, it's "trolling".
              Last edited by klaus54; 12-24-2014, 10:03 AM. Reason: p.s.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                I realize that no amount of data will convince a YEC presuppositional apologist, but I'm just interested in how YECs explain the Pennsylanian Cyclothems?
                Simple. They don't.

                Roy
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  Apparent historyin'.

                  The stake to the heart of YECs.

                  K54
                  Bring the garlic and silver bullets
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by phank View Post
                    Nuthin but the Flud waters sloshin' back and forth, probably concurrent with the always miraculous "apparent aging".
                    I am a YEC, so let's talk. I believe in a creative God who chose to create an interesting world. Science may indicate that the world is old but I don't see why it couldn't be made old. It's a simple belief that I hold to due to Scripture alone. I'm sure you think it idiotic to "ignore" all the evidence but my beliefs are more philosophic than scientific. A good philosophy not only fits the world but explains the world. I'm easy though. YEC is a matter of faith and if you could prove my theology wrong I would look elsewhere and interpret Scripture less literally. No "evidence" can convince me because I am not making a scientific claim, it's philosophical on nature. I have no issue with OEC, or TE under my worldview either. Feel free to scoff but I take philosophy seriously, it doesn't ask "practical" questions like "How old is the Earth?" Philosophy asks, "Should we care how old the Earth is?"

                    But then, I usually ignore the NatSci section.
                    Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                      I am a YEC, so let's talk. I believe in a creative God who chose to create an interesting world. Science may indicate that the world is old but I don't see why it couldn't be made old. It's a simple belief that I hold to due to Scripture alone.
                      Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence. Also the presuppositional view holds to a similar position. The concept of Creating the world to be old, and without evidence for Noah's flood, has problems philosophically. My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?' I believe there are other references in the Bible that clearly conflict with this where the hills and mountains are described as ancient and eternal. God in scripture appeals to reason, and this view rejects it.

                      Note: Contemporary 20th century fideism is not the same as the 'fideism' proposed by Tertullian in about 3rd century AD. His fideism related to precedence of scripture that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that it must necessarily remain hidden to philosophical reason.

                      It's a simple belief that I hold to due to Scripture alone.
                      By reason and evidence there is great deal more to the world then 'sola scriptora,'



                      I'm sure you think it idiotic to "ignore" all the evidence but my beliefs are more philosophic than scientific. A good philosophy not only fits the world but explains the world. I'm easy though. YEC is a matter of faith and if you could prove my theology wrong I would look elsewhere and interpret Scripture less literally. No "evidence" can convince me because I am not making a scientific claim, it's philosophical on nature. I have no issue with OEC, or TE under my worldview either. Feel free to scoff but I take philosophy seriously, it doesn't ask "practical" questions like "How old is the Earth?" Philosophy asks, "Should we care how old the Earth is?"

                      But then, I usually ignore the NatSci section.
                      This reflects a serious problem for ALL of science, society and our culture. ALL the knowledge of science is intimately interrelated, and the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old is based on the same reasoning and methods as the other disciplines of science that result in our medicine, and technology of our world. One of the results of this negative view of reason and science is that the graduate programs of the Universities of the USA are now dominated by foreign students who do not make these presuppositions concerning the presidence of scripture over reason and science.
                      Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-25-2014, 09:30 AM.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence.
                        Creating a world that looks old is one thing. A certain appearance of age may be necessary for everything to function. But creating a world with an appearance of history -- including features that speak of age but are not necessary to function -- is an entirely different matter. These unnecessary features serve to do nothing but give a false indication of great age.

                        An appearance of age, as noted, may be necessary. A oak tree, to be fully mature, has to at least be fairly tall with a full spread of branches. An appearance of history, however, is not necessary and this is where, IMHO, those who advocate such a thing makes God out to be a deceiver. That tree would have no need of such things as annual growth rings, woody knots (which exist at the site where a limb had previously broken off and was grown over) or signs of healed damage. None of these are necessary for the functioning of the tree and only serve as a record of the history of the tree's existence.

                        Another example is a river. Today, the water gets to the mouth of the river by having flowed down from upstream. Now, if God were to create a river instantaneously, it would have water at its mouth (because it would by necessity have to be there for the river to be complete and fully functional), which suggests an age at least equal to the length of time it takes for the water to reach that point. That is a necessary appearance of age. However, and this is the part where those who propose such things again make God a deceiver, there would be absolutely no need for the river mouth to have any sediment that appears to have eroded from the headwater region of the river. That would be appearance of history.

                        There are many other examples.

                        For instance, a deeply buried impact crater from a meteor strike that displays all the signs of having lithified and later eroded doesn't have an ecological function or purpose but it unerringly leads to conclusions that for all of this to have taken place implies a great deal of time – far more than a few thousand years.

                        The same thing goes for things like buried river channels, valleys, signs of prolonged extensive volcanic activity, the erosion of high mountains and even the appearance of billions of years of radioactive decay in rocks. They have no function and serve no purpose other than to provide false testimony concerning the age of the planet if it is indeed only a few thousand of years old.

                        Until those who support an appearance of history that never took place can explain why God would have created the world with a false history, the only conclusion is that God must have lied to us in the fingerprints He left in the real world. To me, as a Christian, that is an untenable position.

                        And that is why I reject the concept that God created a young creation that bears the marks of an ancient one in that this would be deceptive and God does not deceive those who believe in Him. To the contrary, God invites us to know Him and seek Him out through the natural world[1], and this invitation makes no sense if we would arrive at the wrong conclusions doing so. Why would God tell us to go look at natural history to learn about His Godly nature and power if natural history didn't record real history?

                        From Romans we find that we are held accountable by the evidence of nature:

                        Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse --Rom. 1:20

                        God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. Had an artificially dated planet been palmed off on us by a clever bit of sleight-of-hand, we would not be "without excuse" – instead we’d have a great excuse! How ironic it would have been for God to have commanded us, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and then have expected us to adhere to a criterion that He would have violated from the very beginning.

                        “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”(Ps 19:1-2). Job says that the creatures of the earth, and the earth itself, declares that all creation is the work of God (12:7-10). The psalmist also declares that, “truth springs from the earth.” (85:11), and that “the word of the Lord is upright; and all his work is done in faithfulness” (33:4). Finally, the Psalmist tells us that the universe declares God’s righteousness (Ps 50:6; 97:6). The Bible says that God does not lie to us (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Therefore, from the Bible, we can conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record in nature. A false appearance of history must therefore be rejected.











                        1. Romans 1:20 says that God is to be “understood from what has been made.” The appearance of age claim says that we can’t trust what he made!

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                          I am a YEC, so let's talk. I believe in a creative God who chose to create an interesting world. Science may indicate that the world is old but I don't see why it couldn't be made old. It's a simple belief that I hold to due to Scripture alone. I'm sure you think it idiotic to "ignore" all the evidence but my beliefs are more philosophic than scientific. A good philosophy not only fits the world but explains the world. I'm easy though. YEC is a matter of faith and if you could prove my theology wrong I would look elsewhere and interpret Scripture less literally. No "evidence" can convince me because I am not making a scientific claim, it's philosophical on nature. I have no issue with OEC, or TE under my worldview either. Feel free to scoff but I take philosophy seriously, it doesn't ask "practical" questions like "How old is the Earth?" Philosophy asks, "Should we care how old the Earth is?"

                          But then, I usually ignore the NatSci section.
                          So you're not an adherent of "Biblical Scientific Creationism" a la Answers in Genesis or ICR?

                          There's a tipping point where you can no longer ignore evidence without a wild dose of cognitive dissonance.

                          Personally I have no use for a trickster god who creates with the appearance of age and HISTORY -- we see both of these in a dramatic manner in the Appalachian Cyclothems.

                          Oh, and there's a myriad of other examples. Available upon request...

                          K54


                          P.S. Merry Christmas!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ooh, ooh, ... I know: Steam explosions from the Fountains of the Deep!

                            Well, waitaminnit now...

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Creating the world to appear old is the fideist approach, basically to hold to an uncompromising literal Biblical theology at the rejection of reason and evidence. Also the presuppositional view holds to a similar position. The concept of Creating the world to be old, and without evidence for Noah's flood, has problems philosophically. My main problem is; 'Why would God create a lie?' I believe there are other references in the Bible that clearly conflict with this where the hills and mountains are described as ancient and eternal. God in scripture appeals to reason, and this view rejects it.

                              Note: Contemporary 20th century fideism is not the same as the 'fideism' proposed by Tertullian in about 3rd century AD. His fideism related to precedence of scripture that the truth of Christianity could be disclosed only by revelation, and that it must necessarily remain hidden to philosophical reason.



                              By reason and evidence there is great deal more to the world then 'sola scriptora,'





                              This reflects a serious problem for ALL of science, society and our culture. ALL the knowledge of science is intimately interrelated, and the science of evolution and a universe billions of years old is based on the same reasoning and methods as the other disciplines of science that result in our medicine, and technology of our world. One of the results of this negative view of reason and science is that the graduate programs of the Universities of the USA are now dominated by foreign students who do not make these presuppositions concerning the presidence of scripture over reason and science.
                              Perzacktly!

                              "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." - Cesare Baronio Vicenza, 1596

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              33 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                              33 responses
                              212 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Leonhard  
                              Working...
                              X