Creation/Evolution Debate

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1685 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny
Ha ha
Save it for Christine
I was always a big fan of Bugs Bunny, that is one of his more memorable quotes.

Some differences between volcaniclastic and water sorter sediments;

The former are poorly sorted, have sharp angular particles and are often heat welded.

Water deposited sediments are generally well sorted (of course I can name a rare exception) well rounded, and chemically cemented.

The differences are obvious.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1686 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are familiar with Berthault's work?
And
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382
and
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324
No, I have not heard of these people.

Can you list some of the peer reviewed articles that they have published?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1687 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have not heard of these people.
Can you list some of the peer reviewed articles that they have published?
I agree
Nature is not always peer reviewed

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1688 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are familiar with Berthault's work?
And
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382
and
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324
Oh never mind. I see you have mixed in a creatard, Berthault, with some work by geologists that was misinterpreted by other creatards.

It looks like you still have nothing.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1689 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh never mind. I see you have mixed in a creatard, Berthault, with some work by geologists that was misinterpreted by other creatards.
It looks like you still have nothing.
No, Bugs

Cretards, as you lovingly refer to, had already demonstrated TEN years earlier what Maske and Fineberg published in Nature published

"And what did the Nature authors discover? Makse et al. found that mixtures of grains of different sizes spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations; that is, when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely near the top.13 Furthermore, when a granular mixture is poured between two vertical plates, the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have a larger angle of repose than the small grains. Application—the stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches.

Fineberg agrees.14 Both the stratification and segregation of a mixture of two types of grains can be observed to occur spontaneously as the mixture is poured into a narrow box, the mixture flowing as the slope of the ‘sandpile’ formed steepens. When the angle of repose of the larger grains is greater than that of the smaller grains, the flow causes spontaneous stratification of the medium to occur, and alternating layers composed of large and small particles are formed, with the smaller and ‘smoother’(lower angle of repose) grains found below the larger and ‘rougher’ grains (there was a beautiful colour photo in Nature). Even within the layers, size segregation of the grains occurs, with the smaller grains tending to be nearer the top of the pile."

This is from :

http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1690 Feb 5, 2013
From what I have seen Berthault generated huge volumes of nonsense. That he was right on a minor point still does not save him.

In general the type of sorting that you are touting very rarely appears in sedimentary rocks so it is of little value.

It is not a revolutionary discovery. It only applies to poorly sorted sediments that are slightly better sorted after a flow.

How is that supposed to apply to the sedimentary rocks that we see today?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1691 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree
Nature is not always peer reviewed
But science is. Admitting that he is not peer reviewed demonstrates that he has contributed nothing of value to science. He may have realized something that anyone who has worked with unsorted soils or sediments already knew. That large rocks rise up.

I have not read the articles from Nature, but I am willing to bet that they demonstrated how the process actually occurs and not merely that the process occurs. Do you understand the difference between those two cases?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1692 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
But science is. Admitting that he is not peer reviewed demonstrates that he has contributed nothing of value to science. He may have realized something that anyone who has worked with unsorted soils or sediments already knew. That large rocks rise up.
I have not read the articles from Nature, but I am willing to bet that they demonstrated how the process actually occurs and not merely that the process occurs. Do you understand the difference between those two cases?
Careful, Bugs
Your bigotry is showing...

From Creation.com

"Back in 1988 we published in this journal the English translation of a significant paper1 that was originally presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on November 3, 1986 and then published in the Academy’s Proceedings.2 This was followed with our publication of a subsequent paper3 in 1990 that had also been initially presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris on February 8, 1988 and published in the Academy’s Proceedings.4

The author on both occasions was Guy Berthault, and his important experiments have demonstrated how multiple laminations form spontaneously during sedimentation of heterogranular mixtures of sediments in air, in still water, and in running water (see Figure 1). In subsequent research Berthault has teamed up with Professor Pičrre Julien in the Engineering Research Center of the Civil Engineering Department at Colorado State University, Fort Collins (USA). We published their results in 1994,5 after their research had been published by the Geological Society of France.6 "

http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1693 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
How long did this sedimentation take to form?
http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio...
Don't be silly Russell. Some types of sediment can form rapidly in the event of a flood or eruption. Others cannot. You cannot just poke a camera at a fast sedimentation event and assume all sediments can form in the same way.

Some Grand Canyon sediments had to form through slow processes and processes inconsistent with the Global Flood scenario, in fact, the majority of them. Again, I urge you to read:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

Before coming back with these cardboard cutout responses!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1694 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
It most obviously is Mt St Helens
Here's the blurb from the figure from the original scientific source:
"Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption."
So that's 7.5 m of fine layering produced in hours
By the way, please do not use terms of endearments with me
I am not your maroon no matter how maroonish you may feel
Lovely. Still does not explain most of the sedimentation in the Grand Canyon. Read:

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1695 Feb 6, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
MAZ?!!?!
Sorry, bud.
She ran off with her tail between her legs, leaving you to fend for yourself. The poor lass just couldnt keep up.
Wondered what happened to her

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1696 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny
Ha ha
Save it for Christine
Why, I already know you are an uneducated Ozzie, you prove it in every post you make. Well either uneducated or deliberately ignorant, not much difference in the final result.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1697 Feb 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly Russell. Some types of sediment can form rapidly in the event of a flood or eruption. Others cannot. You cannot just poke a camera at a fast sedimentation event and assume all sediments can form in the same way.
Some Grand Canyon sediments had to form through slow processes and processes inconsistent with the Global Flood scenario, in fact, the majority of them. Again, I urge you to read:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...
Before coming back with these cardboard cutout responses!
Nope
Not a camera
Satellite in the case of Mt St Helens where an over 7 m wall of sedimentation took hours to form

You were very excited just yesterday telling me that Lenski's citrate utilising bugs were confirmation that if this co-opting business occurred in the lab then, reliably, this could be extrapolated to it happening in nature
And how this was "evidence" of evolution

I see

Whats ok for the goose must be ok for the gander....

Not calling you a goose, of course
But then you would not want to be a hypocrite either

Well.....

The experiments conducted by Berthault, Maske and Fineberg are excellent experimental science

...and for Mr Dingbat, for whom everything MUST be peer reviewed....

Their work is all peer reviewed..

Even tho' this was not:

A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C. Nature 171, 737-738 (1953)

Therefore geology does not take millions of years

Just physics and chemistry

Heavens!
You'll next be telling me that stalactites and stalagmites take millions of years

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1698 Feb 6, 2013
It depends upon what the stalactites and stalagmites are made from. Natural stalactites and stalagmites made of calcite can takes hundreds of thousands of years to make. Ones made by heated mineralized water out of gypsum can form much faster than that.

The problem with being a YEC, and by the way all YEC's are creatards since they should know better, is that you have to deny all branches of science to defend your beliefs. You even have to deny simple Newtonian mechanics.

Creatards tend to call any science that disagrees with their beliefs "evolution" and the scientists who believe that as evolutionists. By this standard Isaac Newton was a evolutionist and he preceded Darwin by over 100 years.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1699 Feb 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
It depends upon what the stalactites and stalagmites are made from. Natural stalactites and stalagmites made of calcite can takes hundreds of thousands of years to make. Ones made by heated mineralized water out of gypsum can form much faster than that.
The problem with being a YEC, and by the way all YEC's are creatards since they should know better, is that you have to deny all branches of science to defend your beliefs. You even have to deny simple Newtonian mechanics.
Creatards tend to call any science that disagrees with their beliefs "evolution" and the scientists who believe that as evolutionists. By this standard Isaac Newton was a evolutionist and he preceded Darwin by over 100 years.
Evolution has no bearing on science WHATSOEVER!

Except for evolutionary biology....

Which in its turn has no effect on ANYTHING

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1700 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has no bearing on science WHATSOEVER!
Except for evolutionary biology....
Which in its turn has no effect on ANYTHING
You use the fruits of evolution every day. You are using it right now. Unfortunately you are too uneducated to realize it.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1701 Feb 6, 2013
"Fruits of evolution"?

Like what?
Driving a car? as you have previous suggested in a fit of mad desperation

It's sour grapes, Bud
No evidence for nothing
No mechanism for nothing
No nothing for anything!

That's evolution...
Much ado about ....

NUTHIN"

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1702 Feb 6, 2013
Russell wrote:
"Fruits of evolution"?
Like what?
Driving a car? as you have previous suggested in a fit of mad desperation
It's sour grapes, Bud
No evidence for nothing
No mechanism for nothing
No nothing for anything!
That's evolution...
Much ado about ....
NUTHIN"
So you can occasionally pay attention. Good.

So do you think you could drive a car without oil?

Of course you claim to be a YEC to, that means you have to reject Newton, since his physics says the Solar System is billions of years old.

In fact if you are a YEC you have to reject almost every science there is out there. None of them support a young Earth. All of them support an old Earth.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1703 Feb 7, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope
Not a camera
Satellite in the case of Mt St Helens where an over 7 m wall of sedimentation took hours to form
You were very excited just yesterday telling me that Lenski's citrate utilising bugs were confirmation that if this co-opting business occurred in the lab then, reliably, this could be extrapolated to it happening in nature
And how this was "evidence" of evolution
I see
Whats ok for the goose must be ok for the gander....
Not calling you a goose, of course
But then you would not want to be a hypocrite either
Well.....
The experiments conducted by Berthault, Maske and Fineberg are excellent experimental science
...and for Mr Dingbat, for whom everything MUST be peer reviewed....
Their work is all peer reviewed..
Even tho' this was not:
A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Watson J.D. and Crick F.H.C. Nature 171, 737-738 (1953)
Therefore geology does not take millions of years
Just physics and chemistry
Heavens!
You'll next be telling me that stalactites and stalagmites take millions of years
To repeat - the formation of Mt St Helen's type sediments does not mean all sediments or channels can form in the same way. That is the most superficial thinking. There are sediments in the column that require millennia or millions of years to form by any process we know.

Read

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

Go on! Fifteen minutes of your time, to actually understand why your views are regarded as batshit insane by the scientific community.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1704 Feb 7, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
To repeat - the formation of Mt St Helen's type sediments does not mean all sediments or channels can form in the same way. That is the most superficial thinking. There are sediments in the column that require millennia or millions of years to form by any process we know.
Read
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...
Go on! Fifteen minutes of your time, to actually understand why your views are regarded as batshit insane by the scientific community.
You read mine...
And....er....
I'll not read your's

http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-worl...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 29 min red and right 173,969
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr kenedy 143,947
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 14 hr Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed macumazahn 1,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed macumazahn 20,900
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Wed karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Wed dollarsbill 14
More from around the web