A rock in the Snowy Range
John Harshman
myself in Laramie, Wyoming, looking for birds, and several friends and I
took a short trip to the summit of the nearby Snowy Range. And so I
discovered some spectacular geology as interesting as the pine grosbeaks
and western pirangas. The Snowy Range (at least what I saw of it) is
mostly quartzite and greenschist, the product of continental-scale
metamorphism occasioned by some ancient orogeny.
And here and there I saw a few big chunks of metaconglomerate. The rock
consisted of white quartz pebbles, an inch or so in averaqe diameter,
somewhat flattened, in a darker ground. The pebbles had fuzzy edges, and
if the recrystalization had proceeded very much further all I would have
seen would have been a purplish gray quartzite.
So I got to thinking. How would a young-earth creationist explain this rock?
I know how I would. First we need a source rock for the pebbles. For
such big lumps of quartz that would be a coarse-grained granite. It
would form as a pluton intruded miles under the earth, taking millions
of years to cool so that the minerals would have time to grow such big
crystals. Then erosion and uplift would have had to bring the granite to
the surface, where the pebbles would be eroded out of it, and
transported by water toward the sea, in the process giving them their
rounded form. And then the pebbles would be deposited together with sand
in some high-energy process that didn't allow time for sorting of
particles by size -- perhaps an alluvial fan built by spring floods.
Eventually this fan would be buried deep enough that the mixed sand and
pebbles would be cemented together into a conglomerate. Later, that
continental-scale metamorphism I mentioned before would cause the
conglomerate to recrystallize, atoms migrating to form crystal bonds
between sand grain and sand grain, sand grain and pebble. Pressure on
the rock made plastic by heat would flatten the originally rounded
pebbles too. And so the sedimentary conglomerate becomes a much harder
metamorphic metaconglomerate. Finally, the buried metaconglomerate must
be uplifted, exposed by erosion, and eroded itself to produce the rock I
way.
So we have a multitude of steps, which I will briefly recap here:
1. Intrusion of magma.
2. Cooling to solid granite.
3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite.
4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles.
5. Deposition of sediment.
6. Formation of conglomerate.
7. Metamorphism of conglomerate.
8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate.
9. Erosion of metaconglomerate.
All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the
geological facts?
Paul J Gans
Geez, you don't seem to believe in Goddidit, do you? Miracles
are necessary for YEC creationism.
In other words, since YEC creationists KNOW that they are right,
what you saw was evidence of miracles in action.
On the other hand, since I am a strict non-YEC non-creationist,
I salute you on your analysis.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
MAB
>
> 1. Intrusion of magma.
> 2. Cooling to solid granite.
> 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite.
> 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles.
> 5. Deposition of sediment.
> 6. Formation of conglomerate.
> 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate.
> 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate.
> 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate.
>
> All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the
> geological facts?
Dr. Snelling says "To begin our study, we must point out that it is at
least theoretically possible that some intrusive igneous lithologies
had supernatural origins during creation week—some initial rocks had
to be supernaturally created with an appearance of a formational
history and therefore age."
See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/cooling-thick-igneous-bodies
Doesn't that clear up your nasty questions?
Mark
John Harshman
Strangely, no. Even if we believe it, that covers only steps 1 and 2. I
suppose you could extend the omphalos argument to all of geology. But why?
MAB
> MAB wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 9:49 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> 1. Intrusion of magma.
> >> 2. Cooling to solid granite.
> >> 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite.
> >> 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles.
> >> 5. Deposition of sediment.
> >> 6. Formation of conglomerate.
> >> 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate.
> >> 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate.
> >> 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate.
>
> >> All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the
> >> geological facts?
>
> > Dr. Snelling says "To begin our study, we must point out that it is at
> > least theoretically possible that some intrusive igneous lithologies
> > had supernatural origins during creation week—some initial rocks had
> > to be supernaturally created with an appearance of a formational
> > history and therefore age."
>
>
> > Doesn't that clear up your nasty questions?
>
> Strangely, no. Even if we believe it, that covers only steps 1 and 2. I
> suppose you could extend the omphalos argument to all of geology. But why?
I think this strategy is taken by Snelling to be able to ignore any
evidence that he doesn't like. Snelling accepts the evidence for
Pangea because he can fit it into a bizarre YEC account of plate
tectonics (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-
plate-tectonics). Anything before Pangea - what you describe is likely
pre-Pangea - was simply just there.
Mark
John Harshman
I've never been able to find a good date for any of the events in the
Snowy Range except that #7 is upwards of 2 billion years old. So yes,
considerably predating Pangea. Older than Rodinia too.
Tapestry
> I've never been able to find a good date for any of the events in the
> Snowy Range except that #7 is upwards of 2 billion years old. So yes,
> considerably predating Pangea. Older than Rodinia too.
Don't be so gullible mcfly ...
MAB
I'm making my way through 'Canada Rocks: The Geologic Journey' (see:
http://www.cbc.ca/geologic).
Although concerned mainly with Canadian geology most of NA is covered.
It sounds like the Snowy Mountains could be an outcrop of the NA
craton (or what we Canadians like to call the Canadian shield). I'll
try to look it up.
Mark
All-Seeing-I
I doubt the earth is 6000 years old as some believe. But I also doubt
the earth is billions of years old too. The creation of Adam and God's
garden may be as old as around 6000 years; But, the earth itself has
existed through several prior eons in one form or another.
The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as
well as with modern science. Which raises the probability of it being
true.
John Harshman
So why do you doubt that the earth is billions of years old? You seem to
rely on "ancient texts" for all your knowledge. What evidence do you
have that any of your ancient texts are true?
Earle Jones
<036849dc-b9cb-4697...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
[...]
> I doubt the earth is 6000 years old as some believe. But I also doubt
> the earth is billions of years old too. The creation of Adam and God's
> garden may be as old as around 6000 years; But, the earth itself has
> existed through several prior eons in one form or another.
>
> The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as
> well as with modern science. Which raises the probability of it being
> true.
*
What is the basis of your judgment that the earth is not billions of
years old?
I believe that the earth is billions of years old. I base my judgment
on the conclusions of thousands of scientists who study this and publish
their findings.
If you want a good starting point on the age of the earth, I suggest you
read:
"The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple. He discusses all of the
measuring techniques and their limitations and shortcomings.
I'm sure the book is available in your library, if you are really
interested in this subject.
earle
*
Paul J Gans
>See: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/cooling-thick-igneous-bodies
Not totally. Why would God play Loki and want to trick us. Is
it an attempt to convince us not to use the brains God gave us?
Or is YECism simply wrong. They get their pick.
All-seeing-I
Not all of my knowledge is gleaned from texts.
Science does have it's merits. IOW not /all/ of scientific discovery
is false. Quite the contrary. Scientists have benefited mankind in was
thought impossible just a hundred years ago.
But having texts that outline man's existence coupled with scientific
discoveries can raise the probability of accuracy because one does not
rely on just one or the other for information.
For instance, Alulim was the first king of Eridu in Sumar according to
the Sumerian king list, making him the first known king in the world
at roughly 250,000 years ago.
Science claims between 400000 and 250000 years ago Homo erects evolved
into Homo spines.
We now have a common date for homo.S. shared by science and ancient
texts of around 250,000.
250000 years ago was probably a point of a creation and not a point of
speciation since we have no observations of the speciation taking
place but we do have stories of a creation taking place that, for all
practical purposes, can be assumed correct because we have no evidence
the stories are just "made up". Couple this with other cultures having
traditions about intelligent humans in the same age range.
Then we have man living in the Carmel Caves around 150,000 years ago.
Adam and Eve were said to lived in "The Cave Of Treasures" when they
departed Eden.
The anecdotal evidence for intelligent man living hundreds of
thousands of years ago is compelling. Science confirms earth had prior
eons.
So. Do we believe man evolved even though we have no actual
observation of such, or do we believe what has been recorded as actual
events by a people that had no reason to lie?
The math is rather simple. We believe the texts first and science
second
John Harshman
> On Nov 10, 5:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> I doubt the earth is 6000 years old as some believe. But I also doubt
>>> the earth is billions of years old too. The creation of Adam and God's
>>> garden may be as old as around 6000 years; But, the earth itself has
>>> existed through several prior eons in one form or another.
>>> The existence of several prior eons lines up with ancient texts as
>>> well as with modern science. Which raises the probability of it being
>>> true.
>> So why do you doubt that the earth is billions of years old? You seem to
>> rely on "ancient texts" for all your knowledge. What evidence do you
>> have that any of your ancient texts are true?
>
> Not all of my knowledge is gleaned from texts.
> Science does have it's merits. IOW not /all/ of scientific discovery
> is false. Quite the contrary. Scientists have benefited mankind in was
> thought impossible just a hundred years ago.
OK. How do you tell when science is false and when it's true?
> But having texts that outline man's existence coupled with scientific
> discoveries can raise the probability of accuracy because one does not
> rely on just one or the other for information.
None of this answers my question. What evidence do you have that any of
your ancient texts are true?
> For instance, Alulim was the first king of Eridu in Sumar according to
> the Sumerian king list, making him the first known king in the world
> at roughly 250,000 years ago.
>
> Science claims between 400000 and 250000 years ago Homo erects evolved
> into Homo spines.
>
> We now have a common date for homo.S. shared by science and ancient
> texts of around 250,000.
No we don't. The king list is wrong. Eridu is no more than a few
thousand years old. Nor do Sumerian kings have anything to do with the
origin of Homo sapiens. You are putting together a fake number with a
vague real number that happens to resemble it. That's evidence for nothing.
> 250000 years ago was probably a point of a creation and not a point of
> speciation since we have no observations of the speciation taking
> place but we do have stories of a creation taking place that, for all
> practical purposes, can be assumed correct because we have no evidence
> the stories are just "made up". Couple this with other cultures having
> traditions about intelligent humans in the same age range.
That's no evidence at all. You are picking what you like and ignoring
what you don't.
> Then we have man living in the Carmel Caves around 150,000 years ago.
> Adam and Eve were said to lived in "The Cave Of Treasures" when they
> departed Eden.
I have no idea what the Carmel Caves are, but what could they possibly
have to do with the Adam & Eve story?
> The anecdotal evidence for intelligent man living hundreds of
> thousands of years ago is compelling. Science confirms earth had prior
> eons.
Science confirms that Sumerian civilization is no more than a few
thousand years old. You reject that. You accept what you want and reject
what you don't, with no rationale except that you like it or don't.
> So. Do we believe man evolved even though we have no actual
> observation of such, or do we believe what has been recorded as actual
> events by a people that had no reason to lie?
Do we believe, then, that Marduk slew Tiamat and made the earth and sky
from her body? Or do you perhaps pick what you like and ignore the rest?
> The math is rather simple. We believe the texts first and science
> second
That's not math. It's your arbitrary choice. Why believe the texts?
That's the question I asked and you haven't answered.
All-seeing-I
OK. Let's try a different approach.
If you are going to assert the Sumarian version of man's origins is
all lie shouldn't you at least offer a motive as to why?
Think about it. It took great effort to record all that information on
huge and heavy stone tablets.
Just to lie?
No.
Boikat
Embelishment to lend credibility by the current royalty against any
who would challenge the royal legacy.
> Think about it. It took great effort to record all that information on
> huge and heavy stone tablets.
Why would that bother a king who so ordered it so written? It's no
hair off his chest,and there were probably plenty of people willing to
earn a fw sheckles to carve whatever the hell the King wanted into the
"stone tablets".
>
> Just to lie?
To assert credibility.
>
> No.-
You're a fool.
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You make accusations with no evidene while shaking your fist for
evidence from othes.
Typical Evolutionist Double Standards.
Which makes YOU the fool. Not me.
John Harshman
No. I don't say it's a lie. I just say it isn't true. But if we need
motives, I'm sure we could think of some. Do you think Joseph Smith
really translated golden tablets with the aid of the urim and thummim?
> Think about it. It took great effort to record all that information on
> huge and heavy stone tablets.
>
> Just to lie?
>
> No.
You didn't answer my question. Do you believe that Marduk slew Tiamat
and made earth and sky from her body? If not, why not? In other words,
why believe the texts, and why believe only those parts you like?
richardal...@googlemail.com
Here is a collection of 46 creation myths. They give in some cases
radically different accounts of how the universe was created.
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/myths_1.php#1
On what basis do you determine which is correct?
RF
Paul J Gans
This is quite wrong. I doubt that there is a scholarly text
that says this.
[...]
>The math is rather simple. We believe the texts first and science
>second
We know. I've been trying to explain this to folks for some time
now.
Your beliefs are based on a different set of axioms than ours.
There is NO hope of reconciling them. What it means is that
you cannot pick and choose. You can't take *some* scientific
results and use them. The basic axioms are different.
So if it isn't in the Bible, you can't use it.
I have never understood why creationists don't get this. There
is *no way* that your views and science can be reconciled. The
evolutionists here know this. What is surprising is that you
don't.
Boikat
You simply make unsupported claims, then whine about it like a little
spoiled brat when challenged to support them, and even whine and throw
a fit when someone proposes a reasonable rebuttal to your idiocy. You
seriously need to grow up.
>
> Typical Evolutionist Double Standards.
Typical creationist whining. Where's the "double standard"? And don't
bother claiming that there's no evidence to support the ToE, since
piles upon piles of evidence has been presented to you several times.
Dispite your infantile dismissals, the evidence still exists, and will
not go away just because you want it to.
>
> Which makes YOU the fool. Not me.-
Go back to your corner and pout, crybaby.
Boikat
TomS
<hdercc$4mr$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
[...snip...]
>Your beliefs are based on a different set of axioms than ours.
>There is NO hope of reconciling them. What it means is that
>you cannot pick and choose. You can't take *some* scientific
>results and use them. The basic axioms are different.
>
>So if it isn't in the Bible, you can't use it.
More precisely, if they use it, then they claim that it is in
the Bible.
Some of the time, that can be made into a plausible claim.
Some of the time, it takes some imaginative interpretative work.
Some of the time, nobody ever imagined that that was what the
Bible was saying up until fairly recent times (some time between
the 17th and 20th centuries, depending on the novelty).
And occasionally, it just plain isn't in the Bible no matter how
much work you put into it.
>
>I have never understood why creationists don't get this. There
>is *no way* that your views and science can be reconciled. The
>evolutionists here know this. What is surprising is that you
>don't.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
What book are you taking this specific story from?
heekster
John Harshman
> What book are you taking this specific story from?
Stalling? It comes from the Enuma Elish, as you almost certainly know
already. And you still haven't answered any of my questions. Why don't
you ever answer?
Caranx latus
Is [M]adape letting his spell checker compose his posts again?
Paul J Gans
>"On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:13:48 +0000 (UTC), in article
><hdercc$4mr$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>Your beliefs are based on a different set of axioms than ours.
>>There is NO hope of reconciling them. What it means is that
>>you cannot pick and choose. You can't take *some* scientific
>>results and use them. The basic axioms are different.
>>
>>So if it isn't in the Bible, you can't use it.
>More precisely, if they use it, then they claim that it is in
>the Bible.
>Some of the time, that can be made into a plausible claim.
>Some of the time, it takes some imaginative interpretative work.
>Some of the time, nobody ever imagined that that was what the
>Bible was saying up until fairly recent times (some time between
>the 17th and 20th centuries, depending on the novelty).
>And occasionally, it just plain isn't in the Bible no matter how
>much work you put into it.
>>
>>I have never understood why creationists don't get this. There
>>is *no way* that your views and science can be reconciled. The
>>evolutionists here know this. What is surprising is that you
>>don't.
I agree. I was, just out of curiosity, trying to put creationism
on a firm logical basis.
Creationists don't logic all that well. Or, to be more accurate,
creationists suffering from science envy don't do logic all that
well.
It is not only a case of trying to have your cake and eat it at
the same time, it involves serious contortions of the body to
even *try* to do that. This seems to leave them somewhat
impaired.
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> Not totally. Why would God play Loki and want to trick us. Is
> it an attempt to convince us not to use the brains God gave us?
>
> Or is YECism simply wrong. They get their pick.
The true deity is more like Aphrodite than YAHUWAHU. Why go through the
early stages of life when nothing really interesting is going to happen
until at least monkeys are resulting? Create the world with monkeys with
a backstory. Or any author starts the story at an arbitrary time, with
an appropriate back story. Why not the Author of this world? We could
call him, it, her, Arthur because it's our Author.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
Intentional Fallacy: There is no Arthur.
MAB
>
> > I've never been able to find a good date for any of the events in the
> > Snowy Range except that #7 is upwards of 2 billion years old. So yes,
> > considerably predating Pangea. Older than Rodinia too.
>
> I'm making my way through 'Canada Rocks: The Geologic Journey' (see:http://www.cbc.ca/geologic).
>
> Although concerned mainly with Canadian geology most of NA is covered.
> It sounds like the Snowy Mountains could be an outcrop of the NA
> craton (or what we Canadians like to call the Canadian shield). I'll
> try to look it up.
>
> Mark
The location being Wyoming it is likely part of what is called the
Wyoming province - not necessarily corresponding to state lines of
course. Wyoming province is part of the NA craton. From the book in my
previous post (Pages 96-97 section 4.4):
“Our story begins when the Slave and Superior provinces (and possibly
the Rae-Hearn and Wyoming provinces) were brought together at about
2.7 Ga to form Kenorland. This was part of a larger landmass that
included Siberia and Greenland (Arctica: Fig. 4.7)”. One of the
authors of the book is the head of the geology department at the
University of Toronto.
Looks like it was part of a continent called Kenorland that at one
point was part of one of the first known super-continents - Arctica -
2.7 billion years ago.
Mark
Burkhard
> In article <proto-F69047.23275611112...@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell
>
> <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <hdd633$l1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not totally. Why would God play Loki and want to trick us. Is
> > > it an attempt to convince us not to use the brains God gave us?
>
> > > Or is YECism simply wrong. They get their pick.
>
> > The true deity is more like Aphrodite than YAHUWAHU. Why go through the
> > early stages of life when nothing really interesting is going to happen
> > until at least monkeys are resulting? Create the world with monkeys with
> > a backstory. Or any author starts the story at an arbitrary time, with
> > an appropriate back story. Why not the Author of this world? We could
> > call him, it, her, Arthur because it's our Author.
>
> Intentional Fallacy: There is no Arthur.
There was one ones. But then came the Death of the Arthur (Roland
Barthes, Aspen, no. 5-6 (1967)), presumably a sequel to Geoffrey of
Monmouth's book.
Paul J Gans
You may be right, but you are running perilously close to
Last Tuesdayism.
Paul J Gans
Sadly, Geoffrey's Arthur seems to be pure legend.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Caranx latus
<kar...@sympatico.ca>:
Shouldn't that be "compost"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Earle Jones
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
*
Some years ago the Beatles arrived in the US for a tour. A member of
the press asked John Lennon, "What do you call that hair-do?"
He answered, "Arthur."
earle
*
Earle Jones
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
*
Paul: The closest I have seen to reconciling science and religion comes
from Edward Wilson:
"I had no desire to purge religious feelings. They were bred in
me; they suffused the wellsprings of my creative life. I also
retained a small measure of common sense. To wit, people must
belong to a tribe; they yearn to have a purpose larger than
themselves. We are obliged by the deepest drives of the human
spirit to make ourselves more than animated dust, and we must have
a story to tell about where we came from, and why we are here.
Could Holy Writ be just the first literate attempt to explain the
universe and make ourselves significant within it? Perhaps science
is a continuation on new and better-tested ground to attain the
same end. If so, then in that sense science is religion liberated
and writ large."
--Edward O. Wilson, "Consilience"
We are doing the same thing the earliest man did: Try to answer the
questions of where we came from and why we are here. The big difference
is that we have much better tools.
earle
*
Stuart
> Last month [actually, two years ago now; this is a regurgipost]I found
> myself in Laramie, Wyoming, looking for birds, and several friends and I
> took a short trip to the summit of the nearby Snowy Range. And so I
> discovered some spectacular geology as interesting as the pine grosbeaks
> and western pirangas. The Snowy Range (at least what I saw of it) is
> mostly quartzite and greenschist, the product of continental-scale
> metamorphism occasioned by some ancient orogeny.
> 1. Intrusion of magma.
> 2. Cooling to solid granite.
> 3. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of granite.
> 4. Erosion and stream transport of granite pebbles.
> 5. Deposition of sediment.
> 6. Formation of conglomerate.
> 7. Metamorphism of conglomerate.
> 8. Uplift, erosion of overburden, exposure of metaconglomerate.
> 9. Erosion of metaconglomerate.
>
> All within a year, or what? Can any YEC enlighten me as to the
> geological facts?
Silly evilutionist, Satan put those rocks there to confound you.
Stuart
Stuart
Sure. They were pig ignorant and had no fucking clue as to how humans
arrived.
I don't think were trying to be deceitful, but proposed a version that
jived with their dim understanding of the universe.
Stuart
richardal...@googlemail.com
Here is a collection of 46 creation myths. They give in some cases
radically different accounts of how the universe was created.
http://plesiosaur.com/creationism/creationmyths/myths_1.php#1
They can't all be true. In fact, as they are all different only one
can be true.
By your logic 45 of them lies - possibly 46, because the real version
may not be in the list.
So why do *you* think that the originators of most creation myths were
lying?
And on what basis do you decide which of the 46 accounts is true?
RF
RF
Mike Painter
>
>>>
>>> I have never understood why creationists don't get this. There
>>> is *no way* that your views and science can be reconciled. The
>>> evolutionists here know this. What is surprising is that you
>>> don't.
>
> I agree. I was, just out of curiosity, trying to put creationism
> on a firm logical basis.
>
> Creationists don't logic all that well. Or, to be more accurate,
> creationists suffering from science envy don't do logic all that
> well.
>
> It is not only a case of trying to have your cake and eat it at
> the same time, it involves serious contortions of the body to
> even *try* to do that. This seems to leave them somewhat
> impaired.
I've always held that creationism could be "logical" if the stayed away from
science and went with math (Apologies to the mathamaticians.)
AiG and CRS among others do that anyway with their axiom that the bible must
be accepted as true (according to their reasding of it) no matter what the
evidence.
The truth tables would be the same under both addition and multiplication.
A + B = A * G = Goddidit.
If A = not A for all cases of A then we are done and they can have all the
proof they want.
Most mathematicians would be green with envy to invent an algebra for which
there never is and never will be a worthwhile use.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stalling? No. Lack of time for a proper reply? Yes. Why your interest?
I have no idea.
Enuma Elish is a Babalyonian version; It was supposedly written no
later than the reign of Nebuchadrezzar in the 12th century B.C. But
there is little doubt in anyone's mind that this story was written
much earlier during the time of the Sumerians.The Sumerian version of
the tablets of creation is older and more reliable. Why?
Because the translation of the Babylonian version of texts aer not
exact. In some cases the tablets makes reading the text difficult
because of the damage. Some translators leave huge gaps. Others
attempt to reconstruct the text based on what remains and then
traanslate by filling in the blanks with conjecture. Which is
misleading IMO.
In other cases, there are too many interpretations for the same words
in the same translation. Which is like calling a cat a dog using the
same word in the same book.
But the Sumerian version is reliable on all of these same points and
were found in very good condition.
If you want to know about Murduk, it is best to start with the
Sumarian version of these stories if for no other reasons the Sumerian
version is older, it is in better condition and, it is closer to the
time frame the events were suppose to happened.
The Sumerian versions also parallel the Indian folklore and legends in
the over all theme and points of interest such as an ancient war,
ancient nuclear weapons, etc etc... to name just a few.
Having two separate civilizations with legends that have common main
points raises the probability of the events being grounded in some
type of truth IMHO.
The best i recall about Murduk (he is of little interest in my
personal research) is he was chosen by the gods to fight and destroy
Tiamat and her army. So your answer is yes. He killed her.
But latter he was worshiped in Canna which is how Baal (Bel) worship
came about. By that time the stories (such as Enuma Elish ) had
already become somewhat skewed because of the passing of time and
political corruption. I say political corruption because at that time
and in Babylon the rulers were trying to exhault themselves to the
status of gods. (even though they had been trying since the tower of
Babel) Which is another reason the Babylonian version is less
reliable.
So is this cosmic/spiritual battle real? Well, the Hebrews were told
by God to destroy all traces of Baal worship in Canna. Which would be
effectively removing all traces of Murduk. It would also be removing
the last traces of the children born of giants and human women that
were not destroyed in the flood.
Maybe that was payback for Murduk killing Tiamat and her army.
God's plan has always been to remove the corruption that the fallen
Angels brought to the earth. God even said in the Garden that he was
going to put strife between human seed and the seed of the fallen
Angles AKA the serpent.
Removing Murduk's influence in Canna would be part of that removal
process.
Now, since God plainly states in the bible that he planned to use the
Hebrews to save the world, and, since the Hebrews did go into Canna
and remove all influence of Murduk and the remnants of the children of
the giants, we can assume God's plan is in effect.
--
Pieces of the puzzle with
The All Seeing I
John Harshman
> Stalling? No. Lack of time for a proper reply? Yes. Why your interest?
That didn't answer the question at all, but in a very long-winded
fashion. You seem to think there's something wrong with the Sumerian
ancient text, and that Marduk didn't make the earth and sky using
Tiamat's body. Why don't you believe that ancient text? What reason
would the Sumerians have to lie?
All-Seeing-I
heh... you are kidding right?
The entire post stressed that the SUMARIAN version was correct I
plainly stated "So your answer is yes. He killed her."
John. Please. Stop drinking and driving your putter`
Paul J Gans
>He answered, "Arthur."
Well, there you go!
Paul J Gans
>In article <hdercc$4mr$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> --Edward O. Wilson, "Consilience"
I wasn't saying that science and religion cannot exist within
the same person. What they can't do is exist within the same
logical framework.
We humans have no problems with that. We can seriously believe
in three or four incompatible ideas simultaneously.
But nobody argues that the rules of, say Monopoly, apply to
classical mechanics. Except maybe creationists.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
> >
>>>>
>>>> I have never understood why creationists don't get this. There
>>>> is *no way* that your views and science can be reconciled. The
>>>> evolutionists here know this. What is surprising is that you
>>>> don't.
>>
>> I agree. I was, just out of curiosity, trying to put creationism
>> on a firm logical basis.
>>
>> Creationists don't logic all that well. Or, to be more accurate,
>> creationists suffering from science envy don't do logic all that
>> well.
>>
>> It is not only a case of trying to have your cake and eat it at
>> the same time, it involves serious contortions of the body to
>> even *try* to do that. This seems to leave them somewhat
>> impaired.
>I've always held that creationism could be "logical" if the stayed away from
>science and went with math (Apologies to the mathamaticians.)
I've recently posted in agreement with this very point.
>AiG and CRS among others do that anyway with their axiom that the bible must
>be accepted as true (according to their reasding of it) no matter what the
>evidence.
>The truth tables would be the same under both addition and multiplication.
>A + B = A * G = Goddidit.
>If A = not A for all cases of A then we are done and they can have all the
>proof they want.
>Most mathematicians would be green with envy to invent an algebra for which
>there never is and never will be a worthwhile use.
Nah. Mathematicians like logic.
John Harshman
The only Sumerian story I can find is highly fragmentary. It was found
in bad condition, and I know of nothing that tells us translations of
Sumerian are any better than translations of Babylonian. All the
Sumerian fragment says is that four gods created the Sumerians and the
animals. Nothing about how the world was created (which was presumably
on a missing section).
And what evidence leads you to believe that the Sumerian version is a
true story, and the Babylonian version isn't? Further, what leads you to
believe that the bible story is to be preferred to the Sumerian story in
cases of conflict?
All-seeing-I
>
> read more
All-seeing-I
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I gave you my reasons in a rather lengthly post. You wonder why I do
not answer you. That is because I spend time replying, you do not
bother to read.
If you want to read the Sumerian version and compare to the Babylonian
version see the Nippur library.
John Harshman
> I gave you my reasons in a rather lengthly post. You wonder why I do
> not answer you. That is because I spend time replying, you do not
> bother to read.
You didn't give me any reasons. Your long post was vague and internally
inconsistent. I ask again in modified form: how do you know that
Marduk's defeat of Tiamat was literal, but his creation of the world was
metaphorical? Be specific. Show us your cognitive process.
> If you want to read the Sumerian version and compare to the Babylonian
> version see the Nippur library.
You will have to come up with a better reference than that. Where can I
find the actual story?
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <hdd633$l1n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not totally. Why would God play Loki and want to trick us. Is
> >> it an attempt to convince us not to use the brains God gave us?
> >>
> >> Or is YECism simply wrong. They get their pick.
>
> >The true deity is more like Aphrodite than YAHUWAHU. Why go through the
> >early stages of life when nothing really interesting is going to happen
> >until at least monkeys are resulting? Create the world with monkeys with
> >a backstory. Or any author starts the story at an arbitrary time, with
> >an appropriate back story. Why not the Author of this world? We could
> >call him, it, her, Arthur because it's our Author.
>
> You may be right, but you are running perilously close to
> Last Tuesdayism.
Or Last Tuestheism, perhaps.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <hdhggd$9bb$3...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > >In article <hdd633$l1n$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > > Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Not totally. Why would God play Loki and want to trick us. Is
> > >> it an attempt to convince us not to use the brains God gave us?
> > >>
> > >> Or is YECism simply wrong. They get their pick.
> >
> > >The true deity is more like Aphrodite than YAHUWAHU. Why go through the
> > >early stages of life when nothing really interesting is going to happen
> > >until at least monkeys are resulting? Create the world with monkeys with
> > >a backstory. Or any author starts the story at an arbitrary time, with
> > >an appropriate back story. Why not the Author of this world? We could
> > >call him, it, her, Arthur because it's our Author.
> >
> > You may be right, but you are running perilously close to
> > Last Tuesdayism.
>
> Or Last Tuestheism, perhaps.
Last Teusdeism! Get the name right or come next week I'll... err...
Mike Painter
LAst Tuesdayism is an abomination in the sight of Maeve. I'm sure that next
WEDNESDAY night, when the univese ends we will find out why she included the
concept when we all know that Thursday the universe was created.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
An Author is much more than a Deist Deity. I was going to write
Tuesdeism, but that is a weaker doctrine and I thought it worth the
effort of keeping the distinction.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
Authors write the novel and then stand back. That's as deist as it gets.
T Pagano
Harshman's task at hand---produce a theory explaining the historical
events leading to the existence of his rock find-----is an interesting
one but hardly trivial unless one starts filling in our knowledge gaps
with metaphysical precepts. Remember that Harshman's thought
experiment is largely an historical reconstruction of unique, non
recurring events, with no observers for which none of the initial
conditions are known. In other words such investigations are where
the scientific method is at its weakest.
I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either), but I can
conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
geochemistry:
1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
conglomerate of the two as described and its existence hardly points
to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in (1) through (8)
require immense periods of time.
3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story requiring millions of
years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain it
hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth which is obviously his intent.
Regards,
T Pagano
T Pagano
Boikat
Like "Goddidit"? Void where un-evidenced.
> Remember that Harshman's thought
> experiment is largely an historical reconstruction of unique, non
> recurring events, with no observers for which none of the initial
> conditions are known.
They can be infered.
> In other words such investigations are where
> the scientific method is at its weakest.
Yet, still a better explaination than "Poof! Goddidit!".
>
> I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
> Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either),
It appears he listed a plausable senerio, so it looks like he's got a
better handle on it than you have, and your argument form ignorance or
incredulity, is a logical fallacy. But you already know that.
> but I can
> conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
> geochemistry:
What's this "our" stuff? How may hours af actual geology or
geochemistry (Or physical geology) study do you have that was not
obtained from a creationist "stink tank"?
>
> 1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
> conglomerate of the two as described and its existence hardly points
> to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
Oh? This pretty much shows you know very little about physical
geology!
> 2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in (1) through (8)
> require immense periods of time.
But for all of them to have happend, a *significant* amount of time
has to pass. More than 6000 years, for certain.
> 3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story requiring millions of
> years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain it
> hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth which is obviously his intent.
It pretty much does, actually.
Boikat
John Harshman
In your mind, that is. In reality, every event is unique. However, some
events have enough similarity to each other that some comparison among
them is useful. This is why experiments can be repeated, even though
each experiment is a unique historical event. And this is why
observations of different events can be assembled into consistent
evidence for scientific theories. If we took your claims seriously, we
would be able to know nothing about the past, and predict nothing about
the future. Sure, apples fell down yesterday, but each apple fall was a
unique, non recurring event, and we can't possibly know if an apple will
fall if we drop it tomorrow. Add to that your strawman of the need for
direct observation of each event before we can know it happened, and you
have a complete misunderstanding of science.
> I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
> Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either), but I can
> conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
> geochemistry:
>
> 1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
> conglomerate of the two as described and its existence hardly points
> to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
Nobody said they were uncommon. That's irrelevant. The question is what
events other than those I describe could have led to the rocks I saw. I
see you have no explanation. And in fact your fallback position, below,
seems to be that I have correctly described events, just underestimated
how long they took.
> 2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in (1) through (8)
> require immense periods of time.
Really? How long would you say is the minimum time for any of them?
> 3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story requiring millions of
> years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain it
> hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth which is obviously his intent.
Thank you for your naked assertions. Does this mean that you do accept
that the sequence I describe is correct? Would you care to estimate the
minimum amount of time for these events, from start to finish? Would
that estimate be consistent with flood geology, which would claim that
most of them happened within a single year?
John Harshman
[snipped}
Once was enough, Tony.
T Pagano
one but hardly trivial. That is, unless one starts filling in our
knowledge gaps with metaphysical guides. Remember that Harshman's
thought experiment is largely an historical reconstruction of unique,
non recurring events, with no observers for which none of the initial
conditions are known. In other words such investigations are where
the scientific method is at its weakest.
I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either), but I can
conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
geochemistry:
1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
conglomerate of the two as described by Harshman and its existence
hardly points to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in his (1) through (8)
require or necessitate immense periods of time.
3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story with millions of
years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain
this doesn't rule out the uncountably large number (perhaps infinite
number) of other stories consistent with the find. And it is rather
irrelevent whether I can produce all the other stories or not unless
Harshman can prove that his if-so is objectively true. Therefore,
Harshman's likely atheist creation story of how his find came to be
hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth.
Regards,
T Pagano
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:49:00 -0800, John Harshman
>
As a matter of idle curiosity, Tony, do you think that because (as you
have stated) the head of your own church is a liar it means that you
are free to lie?
RF
chris thompson
This is absurd. The vast majority of data are collected about unique,
non-recurring events.
That means pretty much nothing, although Tony and his ilk like to
pretend it does. You see, there have been enough *similar* events in
world history to allow us to draw conclusions about specific
instances. Sure those conclusions are tentative, and subject to
revision, but that's a good thing.
As for initial conditions, Tony is simply wrong here. Of course many
of the initial conditions are known. They're written into the very
rocks described by John Harshman. Temperature, atmospheric conditions,
pressure- they all leave marks as distinctive as fingerprints. Tony
and the rest of the creationist camp never want you to hear about
that, or if they do notice it (they never actually *address* it) they
try and pooh-pooh it without ever getting into the details that count.
>
> I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
> Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either), but I can
Wrong again. Events leave evidence. Some of the events were described
by John in the original post.
> conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
> geochemistry:
>
> 1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
> conglomerate of the two as described and its existence hardly points
> to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
Wait a minute Tony. I thought you said <checks above, sure enough,
there it is> that this WAS a unique, non-recurring event. The ability
of creationists to contradict themselves in the space of a few
paragraphs is astounding.
> 2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in (1) through (8)
> require immense periods of time.
Well. yeah, they do. An enormous intrusion, as described, takes quite
a long time to cool down.
> 3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story requiring millions of
> years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain it
> hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth which is obviously his intent.
Of course it does, if you bother to take the least bit of time to look
up a few of the words you don't know.
Chris
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
John Harshman
It hardly seems as if three nearly identical replies were necessary, but
I will use this occasion to point out that there is no "Snowy Mountain".
There's a Snowy Range. Yet more evidence that Tony can't read.
Earle Jones
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
*
No need to produce "all the other stories". Just produce one story in
the same detail that Harshman does, that produces the rock in 6,000
years.
(The linguistic equivalent of "poof" is not allowed.)
earle
*
Boikat
<snip, having read the identical post previously>
> Regards,
> T Pagano-
Ref Thread Title: I've decided you know very little, if anything,
about geology.
Boikat
heekster
wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:40:34 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Caranx latus
><kar...@sympatico.ca>:
>
>>On Nov 11, 8:15�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>>> In the "astonishing imbecilities just keep on comin' " category,
>>>
>>> >Science claims between 400000 and 250000 years ago Homo erects evolved
>>> >intoHomo spines.
>>
>>Is [M]adape letting his spell checker compose his posts again?
>
>Shouldn't that be "compost"?
I was wondering where that odor was emanating from.
Jim Lovejoy
f4f853...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
You do realize that your last two words were unneccessary?
Jim
The birth of Tony Pagano was a unique, non-recurring event. Does that
mean that we can know nothing of that event from looking at other
births? The events are unique and non-recurring only insofar as John
was talking about a specific rock he held in his hand. Otherwise,
those processes responsible for flattened metaconglomerate are common
to many, many samples.
> I have no idea what the unique prehistorical events were which lead to
> Harshman's rock find (and I doubt Harshman does either), but I can
> conclude a few things from our background knowledge of geology and
> geochemistry:
>
> 1. There is nothing particularly uncommon about granite, quartz or a
> conglomerate of the two as described and its existence hardly points
> to a unique set of events in history---short or long.
Tony - large quartz pebbles form from vein quartz, which forms during
the final stages of cooling of a magma body. The only other source
would be from an exposed quartzite (a metamorphosed sandstone). In
either case, it takes a lot longer than a few thousand years for the
parent material from which the quartz pebbles were formed to itself be
formed, either from late-stage magmatic fluids or recrystallizing
sandstone. It also takes a while for such material to be exposed at
the surface after formation. You should also look up the technical
usage of 'conglomerate' when applied to sedimentary rocks - it does
not mean what you think it means.
> 2. None of the processes itemized by Harshman in (1) through (8)
> require immense periods of time.
Define 'immense'. While shallow plutons can be emplaced and cool on
time scales on the order of 100,000 years (see, for example, Coulson
et al., 2002, Time-scales of assembly and thermal history of a
composite felsic pluton: constraints from the Emerald Lake area,
northern Canadian Cordillera, Yukon, Jour. Volc. Geothermal Res., 114,
pp. 351-356; abstract at http://preview.tinyurl.com/ygz6c2l), it still
takes a couple of million years to remove the overburden, even in
areas of rapid uplift. Now recall that the quartz pebbles were
deformed during metamorphism. That means that the original
sedimentary conglomerate had to be buried to a depth of at least ten
kilometers, since quartz does not become plastic until the temperature
exceeds 300C. (Note that this estimate is based on a very high
geothermal gradient.) That burial had to take a while - far longer
than a few thousand years. Then it had to be brought back up to the
surface, which requires another few million years.
> 3. While Harshman may tell an interesting story requiring millions of
> years consistent with this empirical consequence on Snowy Mountain it
> hardly rules out a 6000 year old earth which is obviously his intent.
Well, actually, it does, since each step requires something like a
hundred thousand years, even using the maximum observed rates of
uplift.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano