Jump to content


Photo

Millions Of Green River Annual Varves


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:07 PM

Some of you have a bad habit of mixing up threads.  If I didn't respond there yet it is either because I haven't had the time or it wasn't worth responding to.  I gave you an excellent explanation of how geologists date layers in the geological column by using both absolute and relative dating methods.  A bunch of quotes by people I've mostly not heard of is nothing but a very weak attempt at an argument from authority and the people you quoted would have probably agreed with my explanation anyway.


I'm going to show you the absurdity of your claim that someone needed to be there for millions of years to watch the varves form or it isn't real science.

You wrote :  "Steve Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in his new book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet of volcanic ash varve-like deposits from hurricane-velocity surging flows in five hours."

Was Steve Austin there?  Did he watch the 25 feet of ash layers form?  Did he see each layer form?

That is basically what you are trying to do when you say "Where was your observer who lived over countless thousands or millions of years to verify your claim? Name him."

 

Annoying, isn't it?  Shows a basic lack of understanding how science works, too. 



#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:30 PM

Some of you have a bad habit of mixing up threads.  If I didn't respond there yet it is either because I haven't had the time or it wasn't worth responding to.

 

Translation- 'I didn't reply because I couldn't and am now only claiming that it was not worth responding because I don't want people to see my inability to answer'
 

Doing nothing is not demonstrating the strength of your position....

 

A bunch of quotes by people I've mostly not heard of is nothing but a very weak attempt at an argument from authority

 

How is providing quotes that demonstrate that you are wrong an "argument to authority"... In fact you are guilty of such claiming that because you've never heard of these people then they are not worthy of consideration...

Are you the arbiter of truth and knowledge? How on Earth do you fit your head through doors?

 

 

and the people you quoted would have probably agreed with my explanation anyway.

 

Once again demonstrating that famed "special atheist mind reading ability" :)

 

 

I'm going to show you the absurdity of your claim that someone needed to be there for millions of years to watch the varves form or it isn't real science.

You wrote :  "Steve Austin, who has done much field work at Mount St. Helens, documented in his new book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe that the volcano eruption produced 25 feet of volcanic ash varve-like deposits from hurricane-velocity surging flows in five hours."

Was Steve Austin there?  Did he watch the 25 feet of ash layers form?  Did he see each layer form?

That is basically what you are trying to do when you say "Where was your observer who lived over countless thousands or millions of years to verify your claim? Name him."

 

Annoying, isn't it?  Shows a basic lack of understanding how science works, too. 

 

Bill there is a huge difference between observing and recording the consequences of an event that was known and recorded to occur..

And attempting to assume an unknown event as a cause for something especially when said event is not recorded.



#23 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:48 PM

Translation- 'I didn't reply because I couldn't and am now only claiming that it was not worth responding because I don't want people to see my inability to answer'
 

Doing nothing is not demonstrating the strength of your position....

 

 

Quit answering for others, and please understand some of us have a life outside this forum. 



#24 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 10:51 PM

Bill there is a huge difference between observing and recording the consequences of an event that was known and recorded to occur..

And attempting to assume an unknown event as a cause for something especially when said event is not recorded.

 

 

But the annual events are recorded in the rock layers just as the event at Mount St. Helens is.  You just choose to come up with your own explanation (flood did it) and ignore those who are educated and have field experience in geology. 



#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:19 PM

But the annual events are recorded in the rock layers just as the event at Mount St. Helens is.  You just choose to come up with your own explanation (flood did it) and ignore those who are educated and have field experience in geology. 

 

Wrong... They aren't recorded, hence the issue of not having an objective observer there to provide you with the facts... Rather you INTERPRET and thus are assuming a cause...

As I said,

 

Bill there is a huge difference between observing and recording the consequences of an event that was known and recorded to occur.. And attempting to assume an unknown event as a cause for something especially when said event is not recorded.

 

 

 

 

You just choose to come up with your own explanation (flood did it) and ignore those who are educated and have field experience in geology. 

 

I haven't mentioned any explanation or flood... However you've just demonstrated how subjective the issue is... Others can come up with their own explanation JUST AS YOU HAVE... Hence what I state above applies.
 

 

 and ignore those who are educated and have field experience in geology. 

 

Not ignoring... Just refuting ;) Its a bit sad considering I'm not a geologist and yet have already satisfied your criteria of falsification for radioactive dating techniques...

 



#26 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:25 PM

No, there is not a huge difference between comparing a known event like Mount St. Helens recorded in modern strata and volcanic events recorded in millions of year old strata.  There is also not a huge difference in looking at modern varves forming and comparing them to varves that are millions of years old.  The rock record is how the event is recorded.  That's called science, and geologists do this all of the time.



#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:38 PM

You keep ignoring my rebuttals and keep rehashing the same debunked clauses...

 

No, there is not a huge difference between comparing a known event like Mount St. Helens recorded in modern strata and volcanic events recorded in millions of year old strata.  There is also not a huge difference in looking at modern varves forming and comparing them to varves that are millions of years old.  The rock record is how the event is recorded.  That's called science, and geologists do this all of the time.

 

There is a huge difference. It comes from the fact that the modern event was KNOWN to occur since it occurred when people were able to record it occurring...

Whereas for your "millions of years old" events you are required to INFER that it occurred, thus it is required to be based on your interpretation and assumptions. That is huge.

 

Assuming causation for events is NOT science... Or would you like me to educate you about the scientific method... again...
 


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#28 Bill Ludlow

Bill Ludlow

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 95 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 52
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mesa, Arizona

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:43 PM

Like you did when you said scientific theories can't make predictions about events that occurred in the past?   :laugh_point:  

 

No thank you.



#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 July 2015 - 11:57 PM

Like you did when...

 

Again DEMONSTRATE IT... Why is it that I keep telling you that simply saying words doesn't demonstrate anything... Is that all you can do? Spout fallacies and words?

 

Like you did when you said scientific theories can't make predictions about events that occurred in the past?   :laugh_point:

 

Strawman.. I said that an event that has been observed cannot be deemed  a "prediction" of evolution... Hence fossils that are found cannot be deemed "predictions" of evolution since the prediction wasn't made BEFORE the fossils were found... Rather it was deemed after-the-fact...

(Now for someone complaining about threads being all over the place this post now demonstrates you to be a hypocrite... Congratulations)

 

Now if you have any issues with my responses on that thread I ask that you respond on that thread in fact here is the link, I implore anybody reading this to follow the link and see for yourselves if I have "ignored" responses or not.. (Considering that I am the last poster on there right now it seems unlikely)

http://evolutionfair...ed-predictions/


Anyway, back on topic... Bill can you address my arguments or are you going to keep dodging them?
 

 

You keep ignoring my rebuttals and keep rehashing the same debunked clauses...

 

 

There is a huge difference. It comes from the fact that the modern event was KNOWN to occur since it occurred when people were able to record it occurring...

Whereas for your "millions of years old" events you are required to INFER that it occurred, thus it is required to be based on your interpretation and assumptions. That is huge.

 

Assuming causation for events is NOT science... Or would you like me to educate you about the scientific method... again...

 

 



#30 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 25 July 2015 - 12:06 AM

...
Anyway, back on topic... Bill can you address my arguments or are you going to keep dodging them?

 
He's going to be dodging them for a week at least. He's on vacation.



#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 July 2015 - 12:16 AM

 
He's going to be dodging them for a week at least. He's on vacation.

 

That is fine. It gives him some time to come up with some good answers :)



#32 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 05:32 AM

But the annual events are recorded in the rock layers just as the event at Mount St. Helens is.  You just choose to come up with your own explanation (flood did it) and ignore those who are educated and have field experience in geology. 

 But we knew what the area around Mount St. Helens looked like BEFORE the eruption. No one knows what the geology of the earth was in the distant past. It makes for a world of difference. 

 

We don't accept your assumptions, is that clear?



#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 July 2015 - 06:14 AM

Ludlow's 'refutation' of the elm leaf depicted encased in the varves still bugs me. 

 

One thing his source (ah, a source of authority!) makes this claim:

 

"There is no sure indication that the
embedding of the fossils at Willershausen took longer than, at the most,
the very few years that are observable."

 

In other words they arbitrarily declared that the varves were NOT annual (how's that for refuting what Ludlow had been saying about the millions of varves in the Green River Formation?). But even at that they are implying that that leaf laid there on that site for a few years and was encased by the visible varves yet somehow maintained it's shape and character.

 

SO...........when the varves seem to work for them (unobserved time of the Green River Formation) they are annual....but when they work against them (The Edinger Collection leaf example) then they are NOT annual.

 

It's like I've always said, evolution theory is like rubber band that one can stretch in any direction that is needed to 'defend' it.

 

Another thing that bugs me is that they placed question in the photo I provided (from Sean Pittman's website)

varve_leaf1.jpg

 

Ludlow's source then posted the 'original':

 

leaf_varves_original.png?w=300&h=225

How in the world does the fact that the apparent original was darker help their case? The details are exactly the same.



#34 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 02 August 2015 - 12:05 PM

In 2012 I visited a site in KY and photographed a series of 6 right/left human tracks in 250myo (Pennsylvanian) rock.  I was with Dr. Don Patton who also photographed many of the Paluxy tracks and he was convinced they were genuine imprints, not carvings.  Here is the most vivid of the 6.

 

[attachment=1192:PIC_0121.JPG]






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users