This ought to confuse the ID/evolution debate

[Tawn]

I understand the implications, I havent looked into refuting claims or studied those particular claims.. however, I am somewhat skeptical because of the dishonest way many creationists debate the subject of evolution. If creationism had some serious proof to back it up they wouldnt need to resort to misquoting Darwin and misrepresenting science.
Ill give it a good look sometime soon.. however im wondering why you posted here and not in a separate thread..

 

[Quiddity]

I understand the implications, I havent looked into refuting claims or studied those particular claims.. however, I am somewhat skeptical because of the dishonest way many creationists debate the subject of evolution. If creationism had some serious proof to back it up they wouldnt need to resort to misquoting Darwin and misrepresenting science.
Ill give it a good look sometime soon.. however im wondering why you posted here and not in a separate thread..

Tawn, I'm a creationist and what you said is true. Although not all creationist resort to this type of dialguing.

~Victor

 

[Tawn]

good to hear.. though frankly what arguments are left for the creationists to use?
(also I think its worth pointing out in speaking about young earth creationists rather than the other types)

 

[greatcalgarian]

7 Wonders of Mount St. Helens
1. Mountain rearranged beyond recognition in nine hours.
2. Canyons formed in five months.
3. Badlands formed in five days.
4. Layered Strata Formed in Three Hours.
5. River System Formed in Nine Hours.
6. Sinking Logs Look Like Many Aged Forests in Just Ten Years.
7. A New Model for Quicker Coal Formation.

The link above gives detailed information on these 7 topics.

I like Tawn suggestion of throwing back some links:jiggy:
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/
EnhancedSpirit should volunteer for the link below:
http://www.mountsthelensinstitute.org/sciencecoordjob.html
Formative years

According to geological evidence, St. Helens started growth in the Pleistocene 37,600 years ago with dacite and andesite eruptions of pumice and ash. 36,000 years ago a large mudflow cascaded down the volcano (mudflows were very significant forces in all of St. Helens' eruptive cycles). Parts of this ancestral cone were fragmented and transported by glaciers 14,000 to 18,000 years ago during the last ice age. Repeated eruptions of pyroclastic flows, pumice, and ash followed until about 6500 BC when the volcano went dormant for 4000 years.

Starting around 2500 BC eruptions of large amounts of ash and yellowish-brown pumice covered thousands of square miles. This eruptive cycle lasted until about 1600 BC and left 18 inch (46 cm) deep deposits of material 50 miles (80 km) distant in what is now Mt. Rainier National Park and trace amounts have been found as far northwest as Banff National Park in Alberta and as far southeast as eastern Oregon. All told there may have been up to 2.5 cubic miles (10 km³) of material ejected in this cycle.

After 400 years of inactivity, St. Helens came alive again around 1200 BC. This cycle, which lasted until about 800 BC, is characterized by smaller volume eruptions. Numerous dense nearly red hot pyroclastic flows sped down St. Helens' flanks and came to rest in nearby valleys. A large mudflow partly filled 40 miles (65 km) of the Lewis River valley sometime between 1000 BC to 500 BC.

The next eruptive cycle began roughly around 400 BC and is characterized by a change in composition of St. Helens' lava, which diversified by adding olivine and basalt to the mix. Also different was the presence of significant lava flows in addition to the previously much more common fragmented and pulverized lavas and rocks (tephra). Large lava flows of andesite and basalt covered parts of the mountain, including one around the year 100 that traveled all the way into the Lewis and Kalama river valleys. Others, such as Cave Basalt (known for its system of lava tubes), flowed up to 8 to 9 miles (13 to 15 km) from their vents. Also around the 1st century, mudflows moved 30 miles (50 km) down Toutle and Kalama river valleys and may have reached the Columbia River. Another 400 or so years of dormancy ensued.

Sometime around the year 500 small quantities of ash and lava erupted from St. Helens' north flank. This period ended with the emplacement of dacite domes, including Sugar Bowl around the year 800. from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

 

[greatcalgarian]

To be fair, let us read something from ICR as well to get the scientific facts as painted by Creationists:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

 

[greatcalgarian]

Back to some refute on Creationism:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

I failed to realize how much the facts concerning the volcanic eruption at Mt. St. Helens have been abused and misused by creationists until I read the series of articles on June 15, 1996 at http://www.pacificrim.net/~nuanda/origins/Origins.html [now defunct]. This web page contains many of the misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and factual distortions that creationists have concocted surrounding the eruption at Mt. St. Helens. The most striking aspect of these web pages is the total lack of any citations or references for the claims being made. An excellent example of such misinformation is the page concerning the formation of coal found at http://www.pacificrim.net/~nuanda/origins/CoalBeds.html [now defunct].

 

[greatcalgarian]

MORRIS: Actually, what he's talking about was thought by some geologists about forty years ago. But that's an old wive's tale. [76] It's really been disproved. It's been shown by a number of observational experiments as well as laboratory experiments that these couplets of layers, exactly as with the Green River oil shales, can be formed as events. And in fact, let me tell you about Mt. St. Helens, our research project there. One of those eruptions on the side of Mt. St. Helens sent a fluidized mud flow down the side of the mountain at about forty miles an hour...just a wave of mud. It was dry mud filled with gaseous material from the volcano, and it went down, whoosh! And laid down a deposit about thirty feet thick... full of many thousands of varved layers, just what he's talking about at the Green River. But there's more than one way to interpret a rock. He says those rocks talk, but they talk in different languages. ZINDLER: You don't have varves, John, at Mt. St. Helens [77] and you cannot produce these six million very fine layers over hundreds of square miles...in the one year of Noah's flood!

Interesting debate to read:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/morris-zindler.html

and more thread to read:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-38115.html

You guys (most or all) believe that a layer strata is X amount of years. I see the evidence from Mount St Helen as evidence that shows error in popular dating methods.
Well, you're in error. Your claim that "the evidence from Mount St Helen as evidence that shows error in popular dating methods" is complete nonsense, and demonstrates that you have no idea how geologic formations are dated. I've read several papers on the geologic effects of St Helens, including those written by YECs Austin, Coffin, and others, and I can say outright that the evidence from St Helens poses no such challenge. Before I go on this particular subject, perhaps you could explain the logic behind your statement.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=55522

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=39749&page=5

The first group however will provide data to support their claim that the earth is young (thus removing the necessary time period for evolution to work). Such arguements will almost certainly be based upon some form of catasrophism as opposed to uniformitarianism.
Arguements (data) put forward for this might include the following:
Violent volcanic eruptions producing very rapid sedimentary deposition. For example, they may use the example of Mount St. Helens in Washington state depositing 7.6 metres of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon.
Another example used under this heading might include the island of Surtsey which appeared between November 1963 and June 1967. When geologists explored the island in the summber 1964 it is reported that they found it hard to believe that what they were witnessing had taken only months not years.
Another example used might be examples of trees that are found fossilized in an upright position and which extend up through more than one layer or strata. Obviously, if layering took millions of years then such trees would have rotted away long before they had a chance to fossilize.

 

[greatcalgarian]

1st Wonder: For 150 years geological evolution minimized the role of catastrophic events. Yet the enormous geological change produced by this nine-hour eruption of a minor volcano would take a million years of gradual change.

I wonder where did the 150 years statement come from? A Strawman

 

[greatcalgarian]

Wonder 2: Textbooks say the most spectacular canyon in the world, the Grand Canyon, was formed by stream erosion over a hundred million years. Now scientists who specialize in geological erosion believe it was formed rapidly just like these canyons at MSH.

Where are these scientists? Names, University, Research Organization? Where did they publish their belief?
Did geologist claim that ALL canyons have to be formed by hundred of millions of year? Is the Grand Canyon sitting next to a volcano?

Let us try this:
'A' (Grand Canyon) was born in BC 1000 (Million of years for formation) by natural birth and has one eye (definition of a canyon) only.
'B' (MSH) was born by caesarian birth (volcano eruption)in 1980 and has one eye (very similar to a canyon) only.
Since we can only have 'B' to look at now, we conclude that 'A' could not be born naturally, but must be by caesarian as well.:woohoo:

 

[Tawn]

Without having looked at the research in great depth.. (good work great cal - frubals for the effort) it seems to me from what I remember about geology, that different types of rock erode at different rates. Even if one type of rock can erode fairly quickly - it doesnt disprove a longer period of time necessary for the erosion of other rocks.
If indeed all rock types can erode so quick then we should have seen huge geological changes in the makup of the earths landmasses within recorded human history.. am I right?

 

[Faust]

What about the theory of natural selection?

Let me reword that, it does not involve conscious choice.
Faust.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

According to geological evidence, St. Helens started growth in the Pleistocene 37,600 years ago with dacite and andesite eruptions of pumice and ash. 36,000 years ago a large mudflow cascaded down the volcano (mudflows were very significant forces in all of St. Helens' eruptive cycles). Parts of this ancestral cone were fragmented and transported by glaciers 14,000 to 18,000 years ago during the last ice age. Repeated eruptions of pyroclastic flows, pumice, and ash followed until about 6500 BC when the volcano went dormant for 4000 years.

Starting around 2500 BC eruptions of large amounts of ash and yellowish-brown pumice covered thousands of square miles. This eruptive cycle lasted until about 1600 BC and left 18 inch (46 cm) deep deposits of material 50 miles (80 km) distant in what is now Mt. Rainier National Park and trace amounts have been found as far northwest as Banff National Park in Alberta and as far southeast as eastern Oregon. All told there may have been up to 2.5 cubic miles (10 km³) of material ejected in this cycle.

After 400 years of inactivity, St. Helens came alive again around 1200 BC. This cycle, which lasted until about 800 BC, is characterized by smaller volume eruptions. Numerous dense nearly red hot pyroclastic flows sped down St. Helens' flanks and came to rest in nearby valleys. A large mudflow partly filled 40 miles (65 km) of the Lewis River valley sometime between 1000 BC to 500 BC.

The next eruptive cycle began roughly around 400 BC and is characterized by a change in composition of St. Helens' lava, which diversified by adding olivine and basalt to the mix. Also different was the presence of significant lava flows in addition to the previously much more common fragmented and pulverized lavas and rocks (tephra). Large lava flows of andesite and basalt covered parts of the mountain, including one around the year 100 that traveled all the way into the Lewis and Kalama river valleys. Others, such as Cave Basalt (known for its system of lava tubes), flowed up to 8 to 9 miles (13 to 15 km) from their vents. Also around the 1st century, mudflows moved 30 miles (50 km) down Toutle and Kalama river valleys and may have reached the Columbia River. Another 400 or so years of dormancy ensued.

Sometime around the year 500 small quantities of ash and lava erupted from St. Helens' north flank. This period ended with the emplacement of dacite domes, including Sugar Bowl around the year 800.

No body was there to witness these things. According to the new information, given by the most recent explosion of Mt St Helens, they have determined, that some geological changes can occur much faster than they previously thought.

 

[bill]

the debate between evolution and creationism is a nobrainer reminiscient of the eternal dialogue between materialists and cartesian dualists in matters of philosophy of mind. The main point is that the notion of a psychological self that we can "understand" is an explanatory fiction, and all monotheistic religious doctrines are therefore referring to a Cartesian error in planning eternal life or damnation for a personal self. Anyone willing to debate on this point is welcome. I promise you the ride of your life!

 

[Ormiston]

the debate between evolution and creationism is a nobrainer reminiscient of the eternal dialogue between materialists and cartesian dualists in matters of philosophy of mind. The main point is that the notion of a psychological self that we can "understand" is an explanatory fiction, and all monotheistic religious doctrines are therefore referring to a Cartesian error in planning eternal life or damnation for a personal self. Anyone willing to debate on this point is welcome. I promise you the ride of your life!

Lol...I don't want to debate (I think I agree with you), but could you be a little more clear for those of us not familiar with these themes?

"Canines....DOGS to the ley-person!"

 

[bill]

OOps! posted the same message twice by error. I think the best place to start for people not familiar with this area is for me to describe a dilemma raised by Quine(1960) called the "Gavagai" problem. Hopefully this will stimulate some thinking in relation to the claim I made in the first post.

Quine described a scenario where an anthropologist visited a tribe in Africa went out one day with a tribesman to survey the surrounding countyside. An animal appears and the tribesman points and says "Gavagai". The question is how the anthropologist can know what the tribesman means by Gavagai. The anthropologist is completely naive in understanding the tribesman's language. Quine pointed out that Gavagai can have an infinite number of meanings - dinner, animal, look at that! etc. Quine relates the problem for the anthropologist in defining exactly what the tribesman means to the same difficulty facing a pre-verbal child confronted with acquiring a language. Given the infinite meanings that can be attributed to any word, how is it that a young child learns to attribute meaning correctly and with impressive speed too. Any thoughts?

 

[Scott1]

Any thoughts?

I'm really trying..... but I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make.

 

[Ormiston]

OOps! posted the same message twice by error. I think the best place to start for people not familiar with this area is for me to describe a dilemma raised by Quine(1960) called the "Gavagai" problem. Hopefully this will stimulate some thinking in relation to the claim I made in the first post.

Quine described a scenario where an anthropologist visited a tribe in Africa went out one day with a tribesman to survey the surrounding countyside. An animal appears and the tribesman points and says "Gavagai". The question is how the anthropologist can know what the tribesman means by Gavagai. The anthropologist is completely naive in understanding the tribesman's language. Quine pointed out that Gavagai can have an infinite number of meanings - dinner, animal, look at that! etc. Quine relates the problem for the anthropologist in defining exactly what the tribesman means to the same difficulty facing a pre-verbal child confronted with acquiring a language. Given the infinite meanings that can be attributed to any word, how is it that a young child learns to attribute meaning correctly and with impressive speed too. Any thoughts?

Well, for starters, I don't think there are an infinate amount of GOOD meanings given a specific situation. For example, when the tribesman points and says "Gavagai", my guess was that that was his tribes name for that peticular animal. Now a child in that tribe will be rewarded when it APPEARS that he/she understands the meaning of the word. As far as impressive speed, this, I would have to assume, comes from the very limited number of different circumstances that anyone faces in a day. Sure, ANYTHING can happen on any given day, but mainly each day is repetitous. So out of an infinate number of possible definitions and circumstances, only a relative few occur with any regularity. And now my point: I still don't know what your original point was.

(But at least you got me thinking, right??)

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Quine described a scenario where an anthropologist visited a tribe in Africa went out one day with a tribesman to survey the surrounding countyside. An animal appears and the tribesman points and says "Gavagai". The question is how the anthropologist can know what the tribesman means by Gavagai. The anthropologist is completely naive in understanding the tribesman's language. Quine pointed out that Gavagai can have an infinite number of meanings - dinner, animal, look at that! etc. Quine relates the problem for the anthropologist in defining exactly what the tribesman means to the same difficulty facing a pre-verbal child confronted with acquiring a language. Given the infinite meanings that can be attributed to any word, how is it that a young child learns to attribute meaning correctly and with impressive speed too. Any thoughts?

I find linguistics to be a facinating subject. As Wittgenstein suggested, the gap between syntax and semantics will never be fully bridged. That is why I believe language to be a tool that can be used to help reveal the truth, but we should not expect that it represents the truth fully or absolutely.

 

[Ormiston]

I find linguistics to be a facinating subject. As Wittgenstein suggested, the gap between syntax and semantics will never be fully bridged. That is why I believe language to be a tool that can be used to help reveal the truth, but we should not expect that it represents the truth fully or absolutely.

I totally agree. Our language is vague and, combined with the multiple meanings of words, innacurate. But, it's all we've got!

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

There is ample evidence that petrifaction need not take very long. Hot water rich in dissolved minerals like silica, as found in some springs at Yellowstone, has petrified a block of wood in only a year.

I thought it took forever for wood to petrify. Does this mean that bones could fossilize faster than we thought?