Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Advanced member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Geode last won the day on February 23 2012

Geode had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Geode

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/25/1951

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
    Theistic Evolutionist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Bangkok, Thailand
  1. Geode

    River Meanders

    And also it is affected by base level as well as the amount of sediment load in the river. Actually channels do routinely erode the riverbed, with the amount of erosion affected by the nature of the substrate, the velocity of the river, base level, and sediment load. But often it bis as you state, that there is not much erosion there due to the fact that sediment is being deposited, such as in a braided steam. In meandering streams the erosion is often greater laterally, and that is why they migrate Some cut banks are as you post here, some are not. There are entrenched river channels that do not have the same degree of lateral erosion as noted here. Meandering streams are indeed a common occurence. Still waters do in fact run deep. It will be interesting to see how you amplify this point.
  2. Jacob isn't my buddy, I encountered him for the first time today and the first interaction between us was a post he made critizising me. TEs are accustomed to simultaneous unwarranted attacks from YECs and atheists. This is nothing new. No, there are no two set sides such as this to the TE position and there is not a war between our religious beliefs and science. Just because you apparently do not understand the TE position is not a license to call us insincere. I would respectively add that your posts have shown such a distinct bias against TEs that I don't think you objectively allow for what we actually believe. I think you once posted that you even hound them to irriate them to see their true stripes emerge. I think you tried that with me recently in another thread, regardless of it really bending forum rules. It worked, I was irriated enough to leave that thread and have not gone back. I already wear glasses (since I past the age of 50) and I am plain and consistent about my beliefs. I have also been falsely accused about my beliefs in the past, and have found that people with somewhat loopy or insincere ideas about Christ and Christianity will more readily be accepted and not questioned on boards such as this if they do not hold to an old earth and evolution.
  3. Yes, I am aware of your viewpoint. I have been criticized at this forum for separating my discussions about science from my religious discussion and how this makes me some sort of a closet atheist. I am not an atheist as I have received what I feel was a spiritual witness of Christ. Faith is a hard concept for one to grasp who has not sought and obtained such a witness. But I take exception with you calling me a distraction as I was not making a reply to anything you posted, but a post from somebody else, and I was not really discussing evolution except to say that I think it has occurred. Feel free to ignore my posts so as to not be distracted.
  4. There are geologists who have degrees equal to or surpassing mine who are YECs. We hold different opinions about some of the same topics, but we do have a starting place in terms of knowledge of the subject. Too many others on opposite sides of the issue simply rely upon the opinions of others and what they have written rather blindly without thinking for themselves. I was first taught the YEC version of things in church meetings. It was later when taking science courses that I started to look at the actual evidence involved, and my study led me to believe that what I was seeing through my objective study of the evidence was an old earth. I came here to see if any ideas were being set forth that could convince me to the contrary, but did not find anything that holds up under scrutiny. I agree that degrees will not get one into heaven. I do not imply that God and His word are a lie. That is just your opinion since I do not hold to the same literalist interpretation of the Bible that you do when it comes to Genesis. Science does not supersede God. In one way at looking at things God is the greatest scientist imaginable. He has a complete knowledge of science whereas man has simply scratched the surface of such understanding. I do not think God is superseded by science. It is more that God uses science due to His understanding of it. God created the universe and life, but I feel that he did so using his profound knowledge of scientific laws which he worked within to accomplish creation. I do not feel that anything I have done will lead anyone to hell. In my experience the Christians I have seen question their faith came to do so because of conflicts they had between reconciling their religious teaching and their objective approach to science. They were from fundamentalist traditions that equated acceptance of evolution and an old earth with damnation. But Christ did not teach this. I work with many scientists who accept science as I do, but are still faithful Christians. They did not feel forced into a B&W choice that came from absolute insistence upon one literal interpretation of Genesis. People can turn from God for many reasons. I do not promote evolution, which should be evident to anyone who has read many of my posts. I mainly post in defense of proper geology. But evolution is not the thing that turns people away from God in most instances I have seen, it is how the subject is approached and whether or not the approach is honest. I care very much when people turn away from God. I have had discussions with a couple of friends that I think stopped them from doing so. I think those who turn from God because of reasons involving science do so more because they have been part of a fundamentalist tradition that equates being a YEC with being a true Christian. They were told to reject evolution and an old earth or they would be damned. But Christ and His apostles did not teach this. With study some come to see that the evidence is in support of an old earth and evolution and this comes in conflict with what they have been taught by religious leaders. Given an unnecessary B&W (“do or die”) choice about a subject that has no real bearing on their salvation, they reject what must be accepted by faith. I think they have been dealt a disservice in being told they had to make a choice like this one. I recently saw a paper by a Christian geologist rejecting evolution outright, but apparently he held to at least some aspects of an older earth. He asked why Christians should be known as people who refused to believe in well-known realities concerning God’s created world, and why they should not instead rejoice that God has allowed us to have the benefit of understanding so many aspects of His creation? I see God’s hand in all that I see in nature, as I wrote in one of my earliest posts at the forum. But it really cuts deeply to say that I do not care. Has your hatred of evolution become more important than following Christ? That is basically the flip side of what you are stating about me in a few places. I don’t think this to be the case, as from your posts I think you are sincere in your faith in Christ. But so am I. Outside of science I have found that I often agree very closely with what you post in terms of theology. I am also sincere in my faith in Christ. Will any YECs be held accountable by God for forcing an issue to the point where people reject Christ who would not have done so if they didn’t over-emphasize something that is not core to one’s attaining salvation? I have never made an atheistic post. I agree with many atheists about some aspects of science, but in this regard also with most people who call themselves Christians. I am not saying that numbers make one position more correct than another, but holding to an old earth and evolution is not something that only an atheist does. I am not an atheist. I am not in denial. I am what I have claimed to be. I have been a TE for about 45 years and not rejected Christ. I do not think I am in much danger of turning away now. I have seen the fear in some YECs that to accept anything contrary to the core of that belief is stepping towards atheism. Yes, I saw my best friend do that when he decided that the YEC view of science was incorrect. This was not because of anything I said to him, as he rejected God during a period that we were out of contact. He felt he had been lied to about science. In recent days my posts have probably seemed more secular. I have posted more just on science and not about religion. You are directly responsible for that. In one thread you repeatedly changed the subject from the OP to question theistic evolution. As I posted I was tired of posting on that subject after three of four replies, since it was off-topic and I perceived that there was no point in continuing as I had already said my peace about it there. 1) No, the main “secular” idea that atheists hold to is a non-belief in any god. 2) I have never stated or implied that God has lied. That is a strawman argument imposing your beliefs in literalism as reality and my beliefs. If I accepted your interpretation of Genesis and posted as I do you would have a point, but I do not agree with your interpretation. 3) No, I do not defend atheists on every issue. I disagree with them about the existence of God which is their main point. You will not be able to find a post where I have agreed with atheists for atheism sake. Most atheists accept evolution and the evidence for an old earth, but so do most professed Christians. I have not posted in favor of abortion and other secular issues. 4) Once again, I think science does not supersede God. It is more like science is part of God. 5) This is just what I already was talking about. You apparently equate the issue of rejection of an old earth and evolution with being a Christian. I do not. But this is the crux of your post. The board has been setup with identifiers and “theistic evolutionist” is one of them. You have basically defined that position as being against God and the Christian faith. It has appeared to me at times that people holding to a TE belief are given less respect here than any other group and I think your post basically verifies that this is probably the case. You think we are wrong, dangerous, and threatening the Christian faith. Yet we are part of the Christian faith and have faith in Christ. If the TE "worldview" is unacceptable since it seems it must be wrapped up with "religious affiliation" and the selection "Christian" and "Theistic Evolution" is deemed to be incompatible, I think it is hypocritical to maintain such as a choice at this forum. This option should be removed and all of us who hold to TE position should be banned. Then your apparent wish to only allow conversations between “true” Christians (YEC only), atheists, and members of “non-Christian cults” such as the JWs and Mormons can be accomplished. But as I already posted, having faith in Christ is far more important than differences of opinion about science.
  5. No, the Principle of Superposition is not universally applied as you claim. Progradational sequences such as shown in the experiments have been extensively studied and understood and time transgression was identified and was quite well known and taken into account by geologists long before the experiments were conducted. I have already posted at length how Superposition applies to the sedimention experiments in the video. Superposition holds in them as it always holds true except for in-filling of caves, etc. I gave you a way of proving it but you said that you would not even though it would take less than a minute of your time. The rest of your post is setting up a straw man argument of what mainstream geologists actually think. Rapid sedimentation is very well known in the rock record. It does nothing to undermine the concept of an old earth as all sediments were not deposited in rapdily moving water. I have seen many YEC articles that assume that some strata were completely deposited, and even eroded befoe a later set of strata was deposited. They realize that all rocks are not the product of continuous deposition in their flood model. Does this make Dr. Austin and other YEC geologists "uniformitarians" in your opinion?
  6. I take exception to your comment about me. I have posted consistently that I think God matters very much. I am not an atheist and have faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Are you dismissing my faith because of your strong dislike of theistic evolution? So I no longer care about what specifically? If you mean that none here posting about YEC have come up with an idea that has changed my opinion, you are correct. But have I changed the opinion of any YEC here? I don't think so. Are you talking about a mindset or bias towards one school of thought or another? I think there is generally a very strong bias on both sides. If this is what you mean by "it does not matter" is it not generally true that the YECs here have also adopted a "it does not matter" attitude as well towards anything posted that is contrary to their beliefs? So how are my posts any more a waste of time than anybody else's posts?
  7. Geode

    Young Earth Age Correlations

    What did I ignore in your previous post? I didn't intentionally ignore anything. Please point out what you think I ignored. I feel no guilt in posting about correct principles of geology and their application. You have not made a correct conclusion about the use of biostratigraphy here, for more than one reason. The first reason is that graptolites actually are excellent fossils in terms of their use in dating rocks because those found in successsive stratigraphic (younger using the Principle of Superposition) are different than those forms found lower in the stratigraphic sequence. It has been argued that a living form such as Cephalodiscus graptolitoides can be classified as a graptolite but its shape is different than that of Paleozoic graptolites allowing it to be distinguished from them. Also biostratigraphers do not usually date rocks using a single fossil form, they use assemblages of fossils. The fossils have different ranges in terms of being found in rocks with the section and this allows a more precise determination of the relative age of the rock. It would usually not prevent dating a rock unit fairly well even if one of the fossils in the assemblage had lived with no detectable change from the Cambrian to the Recent since other fossils in the assemblage usually would narrow the time range in which the rock unit was deposited. My empirical counter-argument against inter-bedding in the photo is that it does not appear to be present. This can be determined and any of us go there and look if we were there in person and make a definitive conclusion instead of engaging in "armchair" geology. However, the best evaluation comes from the observation that the strata present appear to have continuity and not inter-finger. It appears to me that somebody had read the account of inter-bedding being present along the North Kaibab Trail and assumed that the same claimed inter-bedding is also present in the area where this photo was taken. That person does not seem to have paid much attention despite the use of the term "obvious"....Did the source of this photo claim that this is the case? Was the actual location given so that we can investigate the veracity of the claim and stop engaging in "armchair geology"... Once again. I'll bet that the Temple Butte is present here and it has been mis-identified as inter-beds of the Muav and Redwall. No embarrassment in me because scientific study supports the unconformity being present through the non-circular use of dating by fossils, in addition to the physical evidence of erosion reported in geologic studies at the surface in question. You have failed so far to make a case for dating by fossils being circular, for graptolites from various periods are different from each other and they are not the sole basis of assigning ages.
  8. I have always been honest with the facts. I think a false accusation such as this really needs some supporting material, such as proof that I have ever posted something that I do not hold to be correct and true. There are people who post opinions different than mine, and although I think those opinions are incorrect at times they are often offered honestly. I only post what I honestly perceive to be correct about the topics I am commenting upon, and I usually post about topics that I have taken the time to study and as such have become informed enough to make posts that actually add to a discussion, whether or not others agree with my position or not. If somebody does not agree with me that of course is their right, but it does not mean that I have been dishonest. You say that you are not going to fool with me, yet you went out of your way to post to me and make false accusations. In my opinion I post without pretense. I am not pretending to be something that I am not. In the case of the topic I am in fact a geologist with two degrees in the subject including an advanced degree. I have followed this formal education with 32 years of work in the field of geology where I have encountered aspects of stratigraphy and sedimentation almost on a daily basis. I post from the position of having a firm and solid knowledge of geology. If I take exception with a false claim about geologic principles I do so from a position of somebody that is informed.
  9. No, that is not it at all. I just am tired of typing over and over again the same objections to what is stated in the video. I have posted rebuttal to the video that would fill a few pages. If anyone searches on the key words I indicated the posts I have made, or posts to which I replied pop up rather quickly. As it is I have posted yet again about my main objection to the conclusions in the video, the one that many others are based upon, and that is the erroneous claim that the Principle of Superposition has been falsified. I made that post suggesting using keywords during a five minute break from work. Quite frankly I had a need for choosing to use my time in a more productive way for to be honest it is also frustrating to have taken a lot of time in the past to post rebuttals and generally not been given replies that attempt counter what I have posted. In addition it is also frustrating when the same people that actually have attempted to seriously discuss this topic in response to objections I have given go on to post this video again and again supporting its conclusions, without making reference to the prior discussions. I subsequently discovered that somebody had handily refuted the claim made about the Principle of Superposition before I had done so, in response to the same person that brought the subject up again as if it was hard and fast science and not disputed. I have seen the same poster bring this up yet again after all of my posting (and the poster before me) as if I had never taken the time to do so. Once again the same objections were raised and my posts were even specifically mentioned. The posts must not be very hard to find for anyone that is serious in discussing this topic. What I just described is not how an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is written. That is part of the process of conducting science properly. To ignore objections is considered deceptive and unethical. A properly written scientific article, or scientific discussion will acknowledge the various viewpoints that have been given already.
  10. Geode

    Need Prayer For My Family

    You family is in my prayers as well.
  11. I think the majority of my posts in the forum have been about the incorrect interpretation / use of geology or paleontology and attempting to dispel misunderstandings about the subject. I would have the same problems with the video that I have noted if it made baseless claims about geology in order to support evolution. I have found fault and errors in technical articles about geology in mainstream journals from authors accepting an old earth and evolution. I also take exception to the misuse of science to support or prop up evolution. If one cannot support their viewpoint through honest and valid arguments, they should find arguments that are solid, honest and valid. If this cannot be done they should review whether or not that viewpoint is worthy of their support. As a geologist I rarely deal directly with the subject of evolution. On the other hand I routinely use the principles of geology that have been maligned in this video. I think these principles are well worthy of being defended.
  12. Geode

    Young Earth Age Correlations

    I think what this actually might show is that you need to review the subject of biostratigraphy before you are able to make an argument involving this topic. I could be wrong, but since you give no explanation at all here leads me to believe that you fervently just want to believe that the Principle of Faunal Succession is not valid because it is not consistent with a YEC viewpoint involving flood geology, and not because it is incorrect. I agree that it does in fact demonstrate that the worldwide flood did not occur unless it was different than any flooding event witnessed in our own times in terms of various aspects of fluid dynamics (Stoke's Law, etc.) So, when you are ready please explain why Faunal Succession is circular in terms of reasoning, as well as how the dating of strata using fossils in the Grand Canyon is circular.
  13. I already commented upon the nature of the evidence, and that there are valid conclusions that can be drawn from the results. The strata formed in the experiment under the conditions of flow are consistent with what was already known from previous experiments and field studies. Such sedimentation is known in the rock record, but it is hardly a typical case or the most common form of sedimentation. Most of the Geologic Column is made up of strata that did not form from sedimentation such as shown in the experiments and therefore your statement is not correct. The video claims that all sedimentation and therefore all of stratigraphy was done in a sideways manner. Anyone can observe today how false that claim is by going to where a river is currently depositing point bars or channel bars, where muds are accumulating in lakes, and where sand dunes have formed, etc. Geology is a fascinating subject that I would recommend to anyone with an interest to study. Taking an Historical Geology class would provide much background allowing a more detailed discussion of what was presented in the video to those who are interested. But there really is no substitute for actual observations in sedimentary environments to get a grasp upon what occurs and an understanding of the geology involved. I really did not question the results of the sedimentation experiments. I questioned the conclusions drawn in the video which mis-interpreted those results.
  14. It is not at all convincing to anyone that has much of a knowledge of geology. As I posted once before, students paying attention in an Historical Geology class (often taken as a Freshman course in college) would see through the error in many of the conclusions given, such as the one about Superposition. Simply observing sedimentation occuring in the field will give the person observing this evidence to the contrary of how it is claimed in the video that all rock layers are formed. The conclusions are not properly drawn from the evidence shown in the flume experiments, and valid principles are distorted to the point of being ridiculous in order to make these points. Anyone can test the false definition of the Principle of Superposition that is used here. I posted how this could be done and nobody took me up on it. I think this came from the fear that in doing as I outlined, the only possible conclusion is that the claim in the video is incorrect and therefore the foundation that the final conclusions made in the video are based upon is non-existent in terms of correct science. YECs really should abandon this one as it does not help their cause in terms of their being perceived to care about an honest pursuit of science. If it does convince anybody of its conclusions, this is done using false pretenses. On balance it contains some of the poorest explanations of geology that I have ever encountered. It shows the lengths that some are willing to go (Guy Berthault for one) in terms of distorting geology to try and support their model. It is rather slickly put together, and showing actual sedimentation experiments allows the producers to give it some feel of being authentic, but most of the conclusions that do not relate directly to bedforms created in high velocity flow conditions exist in some fictious universe with a Bizarro World relationship to the science of geology.

Important Information

Our Terms