It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can young earth creationism stand up to ice core data?

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheChrome



I am not taking a decisive conclusion that this cave is absolutely related to "The Flood" event, but it is worthy of note.

Seriously? You did not bring it up in the context of a global flood?
Otherwise, how is it worthy of note, considering your position?



There is a lot to be discussed as possibilities. Some things can be taken as conclusive. In science, they are called laws. If there is some possibility, but not conclusive, it is called a theory. What I am debating, is making theories into laws. You can't do that conclusively, until all the facts can be uncovered.

I do find the bible as authentic, as to what is published. Therefore it is the law. What cannot be conclusive, are the details not contained within it.

There is a scripture: "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

Think about that statement for one second. The bible is 1500+ pages long, and most have never read it including those who claim to venerate it. What would happen if God had chosen to give all the details about everything? It would be entirely too large for the average person to comprehend or read.

Remember, not all people have extreme intellect, so logically it must be written in such a way that people of all IQ levels can understand it.

It's account of creation, obviously is modest in content and limited to the first half of Genesis, but correlates with science. We do not know the exact details of how everything came together. We are on the same page, to find understanding. But I purport that science often takes liberties that are not conclusive. To be balanced, religion injects a bunch of mythology into the bible and calls is fact. That is not true either. So you have to break everything down. And I mean EVERYTHING.




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome



There is a lot to be discussed as possibilities. Some things can be taken as conclusive. In science, they are called laws. If there is some possibility, but not conclusive, it is called a theory. What I am debating, is making theories into laws.
No. In science, theories do not become laws. They are two different concepts.


But I purport that science often takes liberties that are not conclusive. To be balanced, religion injects a bunch of mythology into the bible and calls is fact. That is not true either.
"Science" is perfectly fine with saying "I don't know." Religion says "God(s) did it."



edit on 8/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome
What is said in previous statements?


Age of the faunas: However, subsequent studies (Surovell, 2000) have found that the indigenous carbonate in bone apatite will exchange at the molecular level and that bone apatite dates may still be compromised by unknown amounts of molecular-level, secondary carbonate contamination of the hydroxyapatite crystal. In limestone terrains, the common error will be dates being too old, but this is not always the case and there currently exist no criteria to determine the direction or the magnitude of the error.


So while a decisive conclusion is made regarding dates, previously they admitted a margin of error for their dating methods. So who is being intellectually dishonest?


It's not me because they dating of the faunal remains is only 1 piece of the puzzle. They also were able to date the debris that filled the 5 entrances/openings which lines up with the dates ascribed to the fauna. Nobody uses a singular dating method to ascertain a date for a given site. there are always multiple methodologies utilized and cross referenced. In this case, there is a negligible margin of error and the dates for the physical remains are consistent with the dates of the geology at this site. And you're completely ignoring the types of fauna located within the various openings. They clearly indicate a very wide span of time involved as there are fauna from different ecological niches which indicates that the surface level environment was quite different at the points in time when these opening were filled by flood debris. There simply is no way this entire site was filled during one instantaneous geological event.


I am not taking a decisive conclusion that this cave is absolutely related to "The Flood" event, but it is worthy of note.


That seems to completely contradict your earlier statements. In fact, the reason you brought up inner space caverns was when poster aorAki declared that there was never a worldwide flood event and you countered that by saying...



You are incorrect.




Geologists suspect in the past, when some of the collapsed areas in the cave were open to the surface, that high rainfall washed in sediment and moved through the caverns rapidly and abraded the cave walls and ceiling in addition to dissolving them. The extensive deposits of red clay in the cavern are derived from terra rossa soils that were washed in from the surface. These red - brown soils characteristic of karst areas are found as relict soils over the Edwards Plateau. Terra rossa soils have been mapped in the Central Texas area by Dr. Keith Young (Young, 1986)



innerspacecavern.com...

Trapped within this cave, are many animals washed in and fossilized at a single point of time. There are plenty of examples of geology supporting the Flood, you have to open your eyes.


If you are no longer insisting that this cave is evidence of a singular world wide flood event, then how exactly is it worthy of note? I'm getting confused trying to keep track of the goal posts.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: TheChrome
What is said in previous statements?


Age of the faunas: However, subsequent studies (Surovell, 2000) have found that the indigenous carbonate in bone apatite will exchange at the molecular level and that bone apatite dates may still be compromised by unknown amounts of molecular-level, secondary carbonate contamination of the hydroxyapatite crystal. In limestone terrains, the common error will be dates being too old, but this is not always the case and there currently exist no criteria to determine the direction or the magnitude of the error.


So while a decisive conclusion is made regarding dates, previously they admitted a margin of error for their dating methods. So who is being intellectually dishonest?


It's not me because they dating of the faunal remains is only 1 piece of the puzzle. They also were able to date the debris that filled the 5 entrances/openings which lines up with the dates ascribed to the fauna. Nobody uses a singular dating method to ascertain a date for a given site. there are always multiple methodologies utilized and cross referenced. In this case, there is a negligible margin of error and the dates for the physical remains are consistent with the dates of the geology at this site. And you're completely ignoring the types of fauna located within the various openings. They clearly indicate a very wide span of time involved as there are fauna from different ecological niches which indicates that the surface level environment was quite different at the points in time when these opening were filled by flood debris. There simply is no way this entire site was filled during one instantaneous geological event.


I am not taking a decisive conclusion that this cave is absolutely related to "The Flood" event, but it is worthy of note.


That seems to completely contradict your earlier statements. In fact, the reason you brought up inner space caverns was when poster aorAki declared that there was never a worldwide flood event and you countered that by saying...



You are incorrect.




Geologists suspect in the past, when some of the collapsed areas in the cave were open to the surface, that high rainfall washed in sediment and moved through the caverns rapidly and abraded the cave walls and ceiling in addition to dissolving them. The extensive deposits of red clay in the cavern are derived from terra rossa soils that were washed in from the surface. These red - brown soils characteristic of karst areas are found as relict soils over the Edwards Plateau. Terra rossa soils have been mapped in the Central Texas area by Dr. Keith Young (Young, 1986)



innerspacecavern.com...

Trapped within this cave, are many animals washed in and fossilized at a single point of time. There are plenty of examples of geology supporting the Flood, you have to open your eyes.


If you are no longer insisting that this cave is evidence of a singular world wide flood event, then how exactly is it worthy of note? I'm getting confused trying to keep track of the goal posts.


That is not entirely true. You are correct in stating there are 5 entrances. There are 3 that share similar characteristics. 1,2,5.


Laubach 5 is located on the southeast flank of a debris cone approximately 220 feet (67.6 meters) north-northwest of Bone Sink 1. The fauna is similar to that from Laubach 1 and 2.[/


Just because different samples are contained within the 3 sinks, does not necessarily mean the many of the fauna did not coexist. Laubach 3,4 are a little different however.

If you take Laubach 3 for instance, it contained a Glyptodon which dates to a much older period in time.


All of these animals are known from other localities of late Pleistocene age in Texas with the exception of the Brazilian free-tailed bat. Its presence in this fauna is significant. It is the common cave bat in central Texas today. 23,000 to 58,000 years before present


Which does not contradict the possibility the bats were introduced later according to earlier statements in the document:


All the fossil bones are associated with debris cones that mark former entrances to the cave system. They are rare or absent in areas away from the old entrances which is in accordance with the observations that, aside from bats and a few birds that practice echolocation.


I'm an engineer by training keep it coming! That's the way we all learn!


edit on 23-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Sorry to be so blunt, but who cares? Either way, that cave is not evidence for a global flood and it's not evidence to show how creationism can stand up to ice core data. You are taking us in a big circular journey of logic that has nothing to do with the thread. Not only that you are saying things that are completely wrong as part of your argument and then backtracking out of it and moving the goalposts with every post.

Just some advice: You may want to abort this conflict before you dig yourself too deep to climb out of.


edit on 23-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join