FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-12-2002, 03:33 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 913
Post

Quote:
No matter how much all you Evolutionists try to sound like "scientists," with all of your INSTANTLY correct facts, you don't even follow the #1 rule of being a debating scientist.......you are supposed to be objectionable, not biased!
For what it's worth Peez, I've always found you to be objectionable.......
LeftCoast is offline  
Old 04-12-2002, 04:42 PM   #12
Moderator - Science Discussions
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Providence, RI, USA
Posts: 9,908
Post

The young-earth arguments you mention all come from a list by creationist Russell Humphreys--here's a site which debunks each of them in turn:

<a href="http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligAntiquityofEarth.htm" target="_blank">http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligAntiquityofEarth.htm</a>

Also, you might be interested in a back-and-forth I had with AiG about Humphreys' list, which you can see near the middle of p. 2 of <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000860;p=2" target="_blank">this</a> arn.org thread...I referenced some additional useful websites there as well.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jesse ]</p>
Jesse is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 10:44 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA
Posts: 2,115
Post

Thanks Jesse. I found some good information in one of your arn posts on sodium/cloride ratios that is helpful in the debunking of Wells' Icons... Chp. 2 that I am working on (and off).

BTW,
Dalrymple, G. Brent,
1991 The Age of the Earth Stanford: Stanford University Press

easily dispells items 3,4,8, and 9 from the list of creationist sillyness at the top of the tread.

And, there are individual articles on just about every list item here:

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm" target="_blank">No Answers in Gensis</a>

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

Oh, and what is "injected sandstone?" DB_Hunter
seems to know, but it is a new one on me, and it seems impossible. I have a short article on "intrusive basalt" and creationist misinterpretation of geology here:

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_dump_on_aig's_tas_walker.htm" target="_blank">Dubious Diluvium</a>

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>
Dr.GH is offline  
Old 04-13-2002, 02:42 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 1,128
Post

Sand injection is quite common, and is basically fluidisation and remobilisation of previously deposited sands. It can result in sand bodies of tens of meters thick and hundreds of meters wide, injected in surrounding mudstones. They form attractive exploration targets in the North Sea and other areas. A nice example in outcrop is this one:



What this has to do with proving a young Earth is totally beyond me, but then, most creationist arguments are....

fG

(Edited to say: BTW, Dr GH, this example is from Santa Cruz, Monterey Bay - is that anywhere near where you live? )

Also, if you want to know more, a website on sand injection research is <a href="http://www.abdn.ac.uk/geology/profiles/turbidites/injected/isghome.html" target="_blank"> this one from Aberdeen University </a>.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: faded_Glory ]</p>
faded_Glory is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 10:34 AM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
Smile

Quote:
LeftCoast:
For what it's worth Peez, I've always found you to be objectionable.......
Thank you, LeftCoast, I have always prided myself on my objectionivity.

Peez
Peez is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 10:37 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
Thumbs up

Thanks to everyone for the information!

Peez
Peez is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 10:58 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 64
Talking

Quote:
...you are supposed to be objectionable...
Lol.
Nihlo is offline  
Old 04-17-2002, 12:17 PM   #18
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 235
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Peez:
<strong>Hi folks,

I have been conversing with a few creationists over at theforce.net, and one (Fat_Fett) has been particularly ignorant, arrogant, and hypocritical. I cannot resist posting a few quotes: Any input would be appreciated.

Peez</strong>
Do you have a link to where the discussion is? I'd be interested to read it..
Valmorian is offline  
Old 04-18-2002, 07:33 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,504
Post

Quote:
Valmorian:
Do you have a link to where the discussion is? I'd be interested to read it..
You can find it <a href="http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6013822&replies=265" target="_blank">here</a>. The topic is long and is currently locked.

Peez
Peez is offline  
Old 04-18-2002, 07:52 AM   #20
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 235
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Peez:
<strong>You can find it <a href="http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=6013822&replies=265" target="_blank">here</a>. The topic is long and is currently locked.

Peez</strong>
Pity, because it looks like Fat_Fett was being spanked pretty hard there near the end.
Valmorian is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.