Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RED DAVE · 08-07-2007, 05:00 AM

From afdave:

Quote:

You are correct that a catastrophist view of the geology of Egypt needs evidence.

Which you haven't got. And, by the way, to continue to use the catastrophist-gradualist dichotomy shows that you have read a geologist textbook published in the last fifty years of so. All geologists, as they really always have been, are ctastrophists and gradualists.

From afdave:

Quote:

I am sure I won't be the one who investigates it and provides that evidence.

It's customary around here to provide evidence for one's assertions. This your opponents have done. You haven't.

From afdave:

Quote:

My purpose here for discussing it is to point out how wrong geologists can be, given the inherited mindset of Lyell.

Which goes to show that you don't understand geology or Lyell. All Lyell tried to do, in this regard is demonstrate that geological change could be accomplished by processes still acting on the Earth. That no new processes were necessary. He didn't have modern knowledge of existing processes, as we do.

From afdave:

Quote:

Are they actually wrong in the case of Egypt?

If you're talking about your crackpot notions, yes.

From afdave:

Quote:

I cannot say.

Then let me say it for you: yes.

From afdave:

Quote:

But I would say it is highly likely, judging from the increased interest in catastrophism as an explanation for many geological phenomena among mainstream geologists in the last 20 years.

Catastrophism among geologists has nothing to do with Bronze Age legends.

From afdave:

Quote:

As for limestone, I haven't a clue how it can form in such massive quantities.

Translation: every source demonstrates the necessity for vast periods of time.

From afdave:

Quote:

Have not studied it.

And probably neer will.

From afdave:

Quote:

As I have said before, Walt Brown has a hypothesis ... read his if you like.

Here's an example of Walt Brown's wisdom. Note, our boy is a mechanical engineer, not a geologist.

Quote:

After studying this chapter, you will see a gigantic, focused water source and a surprisingly simple, but complete, explanation for the Grand Canyon’s rapid formation as well as where all the dirt went. As you might expect, the Grand Canyon’s origin is directly related to the origin of many other amazing and mysterious sights in the American Southwest.

Note the use of the scientific, geological term, "dirt."

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp5224344

Try again, afdave. Your boy's a crackpot.

RED DAVE

hecate · 08-07-2007, 05:15 AM

Afdave, you wrote;

Quote:

I have not studied the exact differences between the Palouse and the erosion here, but I do know that mainstream geologists have been HORRENDOUSLY wrong about major things in their field in the 20th century.

Sauron asked you to name a few.

You reply;

Quote:

Well, just off the top of my head there is ...

1) cellular simplicity -- wrong, cells are the antithesis of simplicity
2) multitudes of transitional forms -- wrong, there aren't ANY truly transitional forms in the fossil record
3) modern synthesis of ToE -- wrong. It's dead according to Allen MacNeill. He's off and running with what he calls the 'evolving synthesis.'
4) Lyellianism -- wrong, just about every geologist accepted Lyell's "the present is the key to the past" -- now it's been largely discarded

I could go on and on.

Your answer makes no sense, read again; Mainstream geologists...

Faid · 08-07-2007, 06:39 AM

Wow. Another lengthy post from dave, in which be simply says "I have zero evidence to support my claims, and in fact know nothing about the science I am trying to discredit (along with those who practice it), but all I can say is that, since scientists have been wrong in the past, maybe probably certainly they are wrong about EVERYTHING, and I'm right.

Dave, this kind of "logic" is not even worth commenting on. It's pathetic.

Are you really so completely out of steam?

Seven Popes · 08-07-2007, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Except you are no Harlan Bretz, dave. Bretz was an actual geologist, for starters, unfettered by a religious obligation to prove an ancient text. He started with the evidence, formed a coherent theory that was testable, and kept looking for a mechanism for the Palouse flood. And he knew that had he failed to find the mechanism, he knew that his theory would have crashed.

Bretz was conducting science. You haven't even scratched the surface.

NOW you say that ... in retrospect. Would you have said this in 1940? I doubt it ... judging from your present MO, you probably would have been bashing Bretz with everyone else. You would have said he's a pseudo-scientist ... he's a crackpot, etc.

Quote:

Oh really? Let's see your list of HORRENDOUSLY wrong things.

Well, just off the top of my head there is ...

1) cellular simplicity -- wrong, cells are the antithesis of simplicity
2) multitudes of transitional forms -- wrong, there aren't ANY truly transitional forms in the fossil record
3) modern synthesis of ToE -- wrong. It's dead according to Allen MacNeill. He's off and running with what he calls the 'evolving synthesis.'
4) Lyellianism -- wrong, just about every geologist accepted Lyell's "the present is the key to the past" -- now it's been largely discarded

I could go on and on.

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:
Clearly, science is self correcting, huh? I guess that scientists are not all busy shoehorning data into misconceptions.

deadman_932 · 08-07-2007, 07:10 AM

So, another day, another big zero from Dave. Nothing new there.

Dave Hawkins · 08-07-2007, 07:18 AM

Yes, Hecate ... I do see I said "geologists" not scientists in general ... A small point, however.

And yes, I realize that catastrophism was never completely discarded when Noah's Flood was discarded, just mostly.

Occam's Aftershave · 08-07-2007, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From afdave:
Here's an example of Walt Brown's wisdom. Note, our boy is a mechanical engineer, not a geologist.

Quote:

After studying this chapter, you will see a gigantic, focused water source and a surprisingly simple, but complete, explanation for the Grand Canyon’s rapid formation as well as where all the dirt went. As you might expect, the Grand Canyon’s origin is directly related to the origin of many other amazing and mysterious sights in the American Southwest.

Note the use of the scientific, geological term, "dirt."

RED DAVE

Hey AFDave, was Wally talking about designed dirt or non-designed dirt*

* inside joke for the AtBC crowd

hecate · 08-07-2007, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

So, another day, another big zero from Dave. Nothing new there.

I am no scientist just a humble former biology teacher and some discussions are way out of my league. I enjoy reading and (hopefully) learning from them, though. I even learn a lot from Afdave's responses.

Dave Hawkins · 08-07-2007, 07:24 AM

Why do committed materialists always say "science is self correcting" when faced with the fact that their materialist theories are wrong? Why not give credit where credit is due and say "Yup ... We were wrong about slow and gradual here ... And here ... And here ... Maybe that Henry Morris guy was onto something ... Maybe we should give his ideas a chance."

hecate · 08-07-2007, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Yes, Hecate ... I do see I said "geologists" not scientists in general ... A small point, however.

And yes, I realize that catastrophism was never completely discarded when Noah's Flood was discarded, just mostly.

So Sauron's question remains unanswered then ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2007, 06:39 AM	#863
Faid Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 1,057	Wow. Another lengthy post from dave, in which be simply says "I have zero evidence to support my claims, and in fact know nothing about the science I am trying to discredit (along with those who practice it), but all I can say is that, since scientists have been wrong in the past, maybe probably certainly they are wrong about EVERYTHING, and I'm right. Dave, this kind of "logic" is not even worth commenting on. It's pathetic. Are you really so completely out of steam?

08-07-2007, 07:10 AM	#865
deadman_932 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Altadena, California Posts: 3,271	So, another day, another big zero from Dave. Nothing new there.

08-07-2007, 07:18 AM	#866
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Yes, Hecate ... I do see I said "geologists" not scientists in general ... A small point, however. And yes, I realize that catastrophism was never completely discarded when Noah's Flood was discarded, just mostly.

08-07-2007, 07:24 AM	#869
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Why do committed materialists always say "science is self correcting" when faced with the fact that their materialist theories are wrong? Why not give credit where credit is due and say "Yup ... We were wrong about slow and gradual here ... And here ... And here ... Maybe that Henry Morris guy was onto something ... Maybe we should give his ideas a chance."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.