Evidence for God from Science

dad wrote: Maybe it was, but I take it with a grain of salt for now. In the present, we don't see water coming up to water the earth, or other things coming up with it much, like salt, etc.

Look up yellowstone.

dad wrote:The present is different in many ways. Things like a world of water and it's weight pressing down on the earth, and even things like possible chemical and other changes in some rocks. Chert is formed underwater, some think dolomite is formed in a process starting as evaporation in limestone, etc.

Perhaps in environments similar to yellowstone.

dad wrote: Water did come up, whether it was mainly localized in some ares, and spread out from there, or was evenly brought up, we don't know. If some areas were sources for this we would expect concentrations or elevated levels of some things in some areas.

Where are they then?

dad wrote: Assumptions as to the cause of some of these are also less than certain.
For example, on a North Sea 'crater', this observation..
"They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rater.html

What are you talking about? The evidence eliminates posibilities, making things more certain. Here is the full quote.

"Stewart and Allen ruled out a volcanic origin because there were no magnetic anomalies in the crater. They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "

Thus leading to the conclusion that the crater most likely formed by some sort of impact.

dad wrote:So, I don't assume a present world type of intrusion, therefore, until the evidence is clear, I reserve judgement.

Fair enough. We all do.

dad wrote:a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment. Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites.

Wow taken way out of context!
Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying!
Here's the full quote.

"Chromium isotopic ratios are homogeneous within the earth, therefore this isotopic anomalies exclude a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment."

The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.

"Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites. Thus a probable candidate for the impactor is a carbonaceous asteroid but also a comet is possible because comets are assumed to consist of material similar to carbonaceous chondrites."

dad wrote: http://www.armageddononline.org/impact_event.php

"carbonaceous chondrite ..
A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic compounds.."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... bchon.html
(Olivine something deep under the earth in case you didn't catch the relation.)

That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?

dad wrote:Also, there are some strange things that require assumptions to try to explain.."

A borehole drilled into the Chicxulub structure hit 380 meters (more than 1000 feet) of igneous rock with a strange chemistry. That chemistry could have been generated by melting together a mixture of the sedimentary rocks in the region. The igneous rock under Chicxulub contains high levels of iridium

But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ ... wen1b.html

I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context.

Thus there is strong evidence for short-lived but gigantic volcanic eruptions at the K-T boundary. Some people have tried to explain all the features of the K-T boundary rocks as the result of these eruptions. But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects.

Dad was trying to imply that there was evidence to explain away. However the evidence needing to be explained away was that for the meteoric impact, not that of volcanic explosions!

The evidence points to meteoric impacts.

dad wrote:

Please explain, you lost me.

I simply wonder if anything else not in the present world processes could have caused shocked quartz. Maybe not, but just because present processes could not produce it, I haven't heard enough about it to be sure only a meteor could cause it. You seem to be but haven't really said much about it.

With our current knowledge this is the best candidate. That's how science works.

dad wrote:

I could find a web site which claims just about anything,

I could find a book that says anything as well. A lot of current research is on the net. Representing experts and decades of work in many cases.

Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits.

dad wrote:

Are you absolutely certain that shocked quartz is not a significant detail?

No, it likely is significant. Question is how?

Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Look up yellowstone.

Been there. Different than water the earth principle, as anyone could tell.

Perhaps in environments similar to yellowstone.

That is from a magma chamber below the earth, are you kidding? How is this supposed to represent the pre flood world?

Where are they then?

There are elevated levels of iridium as already discussed in many places. What we are looking at here is to see if some of these could be so affected, instead of current ideas.

dad wrote: Assumptions as to the cause of some of these are also less than certain.
For example, on a North Sea 'crater', this observation..
"They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rater.html

What are you talking about? The evidence eliminates posibilities, making things more certain. Here is the full quote.

"Stewart and Allen ruled out a volcanic origin because there were no magnetic anomalies in the crater. They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "

Thus leading to the conclusion that the crater most likely formed by some sort of impact.

Leading them to that conclusion on present based assumptions such as the one just mentioned. Namely, assuming that salts didn't come up, because if they came up as in the present state of the world, disturbances in the layer would be seen. The question is, as the layer below was being laid down if it was an are that salt and water was coming up in then, would it look disturbed?

dad wrote:So, I don't assume a present world type of intrusion, therefore, until the evidence is clear, I reserve judgement.

Fair enough. We all do.

Great.

dad wrote:a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment. Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites.

Wow taken way out of context!
Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying!
Here's the full quote.

"Chromium isotopic ratios are homogeneous within the earth, therefore this isotopic anomalies exclude a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment."

The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.

In other words, they assume the meteor was the source rather than up from below where similar material are. Here is Walt Brown with a few thoughts.
"But there are some hidden assumptions. While most meteorites contain iridium, it has not been detected in asteroids or comets. So advocates of the impact theory must assume that asteroids or comets have large amounts of iridium (or that meteorites came from asteroids). Other iridium-rich layers have since been discovered too far above and below the layer thought to mark the extinction of the dinosaurs. Further studies have found few iridium-rich layers near known impact craters.

http://www.creationscience.com/Hydropla ... #wp3301931

Just a few posts ago, I listed how they think Sudbury and the Yukatan site are different. One they say was a meteor, the other a comet. It seems there are assumptions here all over the place.

(Olivine something deep under the earth in case you didn't catch the relation.)

That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?

Determined by assumptions. Just because some meteors have the stuff, doesn't mean that is the only place it came from in the past. Some even suggest that the meteors came from earth, that is why they have it!

dad wrote:Also, there are some strange things that require assumptions to try to explain.."

A borehole drilled into the Chicxulub structure hit 380 meters (more than 1000 feet) of igneous rock with a strange chemistry. That chemistry could have been generated by melting together a mixture of the sedimentary rocks in the region. The igneous rock under Chicxulub contains high levels of iridium

But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ ... wen1b.html

I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context.

Why? The mix there is strange! Also has more than their possible explanation.

Thus there is strong evidence for short-lived but gigantic volcanic eruptions at the K-T boundary. Some people have tried to explain all the features of the K-T boundary rocks as the result of these eruptions. But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects.

Dad was trying to imply that there was evidence to explain away. However the evidence needing to be explained away was that for the meteoric impact, not that of volcanic explosions!

The evidence points to meteoric impacts.

I don't claim it was caused by volcanoes. But simply point out that the molten rock occured at the same time.

With our current knowledge this is the best candidate. That's how science works.

But our present knowledge is based on the present. Assuming it into the past in present conditions more or less yields a different result than assuming a merged world at the time, with very different conditions.

dad wrote:

I could find a web site which claims just about anything,

I could find a book that says anything as well. A lot of current research is on the net. Representing experts and decades of work in many cases.

Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits.

Empirical means present based, in essence, but we can't test the past or observe it. We look at the evidence, and assume certain things and try to make a picture from there. The basis of research done so far is a physical only world in the past. This can only yield certain results. Again, no evience that it was PO exists, so we are left with taking it by faith. Well, I take something else by faith, and do second guess the conclusions baesed on old age beliefs.

Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???

There were many many meteors, the ones I question are ones that happened supposedly in the far past. Not in the upper layers of the geo column.

dad wrote:

Perhaps in environments similar to yellowstone.

That is from a magma chamber below the earth, are you kidding? How is this supposed to represent the pre flood world?

It's not.

dad wrote:

Where are they then?

There are elevated levels of iridium as already discussed in many places. What we are looking at here is to see if some of these could be so affected, instead of current ideas.

I don't follow.

dad wrote:

Thus leading to the conclusion that the crater most likely formed by some sort of impact.

Leading them to that conclusion on present based assumptions such as the one just mentioned. Namely, assuming that salts didn't come up, because if they came up as in the present state of the world, disturbances in the layer would be seen. The question is, as the layer below was being laid down if it was an are that salt and water was coming up in then, would it look disturbed?

Sorry I don't understand.

dad wrote:

dad wrote:a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment. Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites.

Wow taken way out of context!
Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying!
Here's the full quote.

"Chromium isotopic ratios are homogeneous within the earth, therefore this isotopic anomalies exclude a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment."

The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.

In other words, they assume the meteor was the source rather than up from below where similar material are. Here is Walt Brown with a few thoughts.
"But there are some hidden assumptions. While most meteorites contain iridium, it has not been detected in asteroids or comets. So advocates of the impact theory must assume that asteroids or comets have large amounts of iridium (or that meteorites came from asteroids).

So all meteorites have a terrestrial origin?
Are you trying to gloss over the fact that you grossly misquoted?

dad wrote:Other iridium-rich layers have since been discovered too far above and below the layer thought to mark the extinction of the dinosaurs. Further studies have found few iridium-rich layers near known impact craters.

Iridium can also be from vocanic explosions.

dad wrote: http://www.creationscience.com/Hydropla ... #wp3301931
Just a few posts ago, I listed how they think Sudbury and the Yukatan site are different. One they say was a meteor, the other a comet. It seems there are assumptions here all over the place.

Assumptions? These tentative conclusions are based on projectile remains.

dad wrote:

dad wrote: (Olivine something deep under the earth in case you didn't catch the relation.)

That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?

Determined by assumptions. Just because some meteors have the stuff, doesn't mean that is the only place it came from in the past. Some even suggest that the meteors came from earth, that is why they have it!

That doesn't take away from the fact that you lied about the definition of olivine. Someone is being insincere.

dad wrote:

dad wrote:Also, there are some strange things that require assumptions to try to explain.."

A borehole drilled into the Chicxulub structure hit 380 meters (more than 1000 feet) of igneous rock with a strange chemistry. That chemistry could have been generated by melting together a mixture of the sedimentary rocks in the region. The igneous rock under Chicxulub contains high levels of iridium

But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ ... wen1b.html

I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context.

Why? The mix there is strange! Also has more than their possible explanation.

Because you took two sentances, paragraphs apart and juxtaposed them as if they were continuous. Again insincere.

I am not sure what your sentance means, it's incorrectly written, in any case the strange chemistry refers to the mix of rocks across several layers, which can only be the result of a nuclear meltdown or an impact of some sort.

dad wrote:I don't claim it was caused by volcanoes. But simply point out that the molten rock occured at the same time.

No one is denying that volcanic eruptions occurred.

dad wrote:

With our current knowledge this is the best candidate. That's how science works.

But our present knowledge is based on the present. Assuming it into the past in present conditions more or less yields a different result than assuming a merged world at the time, with very different conditions.

Again resorting to a merged world? Then what is this discussion for? In the merged world asteroids floated above the world waiting till after the flood so that they can slam down, due to gravity. Gravity of course did not exist before the split.

dad wrote:

Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits.

Empirical means present based, in essence, but we can't test the past or observe it.

The formations are very real and physical. It's not in the past.

dad wrote:We look at the evidence, and assume certain things and try to make a picture from there. The basis of research done so far is a physical only world in the past.

Well that's how science operates.

dad wrote:This can only yield certain results. Again, no evience that it was PO exists, so we are left with taking it by faith.

Is there any evidence that the world worked differently in the past?

dad wrote:Well, I take something else by faith, and do second guess the conclusions baesed on old age beliefs.

That's your choice, however that is not how science operates.

dad wrote:

Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???

There were many many meteors, the ones I question are ones that happened supposedly in the far past. Not in the upper layers of the geo column.

So if the evidence leads to a meteor strike but the date is recent say 4000 years ago your ok, but if the same evidence leads to a meteor strike some 20 million years ago you have a problem? It's the same type of analysis. Other than the date what problems do you have with it?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It's not.

If the event happened pre flood, it needs to speak to the issue.

I don't follow.

If Iridium (or some material like gold dust, etc that later underwent an atomic change at the split, leaving it as what is now called a decay product) came up with the water, or somehow in certain areas, or some other way, we would expect to see some areas of elevated iridium, no?

Sorry I don't understand.

Salts may have come up before the flood left the North sea covered, with the water that used to come up from subteranean chambers under the earth. The way they may have come up would be such, perhaps, that the (now) hard underlying rock is undistubed.

The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.

It only leads where undelying assumptions take it.

So all meteorites have a terrestrial origin?

How would I know? I am open to the possibility many do.

"a new explanation for comet origins will be proposed and tested. It appears that the “fountains of the great deep” and the power of expanding, high-pressure, supercritical water exploding into the vacuum of space launched comets throughout the solar system as the flood began. Other known forces would have assembled the expelled rocks and muddy droplets into larger bodies resembling comets in size, number, density, composition, spin, texture, strength, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and orbital characteristics"
"Asteroids are composed of rocks expelled from Earth. The size distribution of asteroids does show that at least part of a planet fragmented. Although an energy source is not available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet, the “fountains of the great deep” could have easily launched one 2,400th of the Earth—the mass of all asteroids combined."
http://www.creationscience.com/Asteroid ... #wp1406839
Now, when we combine the idea with the split, it starts to look pretty good.

Assumptions? These tentative conclusions are based on projectile remains.

But is not the composition of comets speculative? Also, if it was not projectile remains in some cases to begin with, but 'ejectiles' from below, it would change the picture.

That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?

Hey, we know this stuff is under the earth.
"Basalt: the most common volcanic rock on Earth. Composed of essential calcic plagioclase and pyroxene, sometimes with olivine, feldspathoids or interstitial quartz. "
http://www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/e ... sclass.htm
"Upper mantle (measured from the base of the crust down to 400 km). 10 % of the Earth's total mass.

Density of 3.25 gm/cm3 to 3.40 gm/cm3
Composition: Peridotite (e.g. olivine + pyroxene)... "
http://www.area604.ca/Articles/Off_Topi ... e_of_.html

That doesn't take away from the fact that you lied about the definition of olivine. Someone is being insincere.

It's down there, as well as up there, how can you deny it? Are you sincere?

Because you took two sentances, paragraphs apart and juxtaposed them as if they were continuous.

The mix is strange, and perhaps better explained other ways. I don't post whole pages, but the bits that are relevant. You haven't addressed the strange mix, you just seem interested in paragraph bits that don't omit the old age baloney, as I tend to do, as the assumptions and dates are virtually meaningless most of the time!

I am not sure what your sentance means, it's incorrectly written, in any case the strange chemistry refers to the mix of rocks across several layers, which can only be the result of a nuclear meltdown or an impact of some sort.

That is your conclusion of the strange mix. I think we could find a pre split one as well.

Again resorting to a merged world? Then what is this discussion for? In the merged world asteroids floated above the world waiting till after the flood so that they can slam down, due to gravity. Gravity of course did not exist before the split.

It's predesessor did. Now, if you don't resort to a physical only past world, I won't resort to the merged past. But you do, and have no proof, or support, but blind faith for the concept. Then you turn around and try to explain everything with it! No can do. I never said a thing about asteroids in the merged past, by the way, if you'll notice. That is what I am questioning here.

The formations are very real and physical. It's not in the past.

Yes we have formations from the past, and look for ways to explain it using certain assumptions. What left the physical formations as they are? That is the question!

dad wrote:We look at the evidence, and assume certain things and try to make a picture from there. The basis of research done so far is a physical only world in the past.

Well that's how science operates.

Science operates on an unsupportable basis as regards the past then, because it cannot be demonstrated it was a physical only past!

Is there any evidence that the world worked differently in the past?

If we consider the bible as evidence. But one thing is certain, you can not evidence that the world was PO then!

That's your choice, however that is not how science operates.

Science does not go into the future or past either it is present based. Only by assumption and belief does it attempt to, and that is not science that is belief based unsupportable assumptions.

So if the evidence leads to a meteor strike but the date is recent say 4000 years ago your ok,

Yes

but if the same evidence leads to a meteor strike some 20 million years ago you have a problem? It's the same type of analysis. Other than the date what problems do you have with it?

If we look closely we have to ask if it indeed is the same evidence? Doesn't look like it is.

dad wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It's not.

If the event happened pre flood, it needs to speak to the issue.

Don't you see you are assuming something and then forcing the observations to fit? Don't you have estabilish the flood first? How can you use this as evidence for the flood and at the same time use the flood to change interpretation?

dad wrote:

I don't follow.

If Iridium (or some material like gold dust, etc that later underwent an atomic change at the split, leaving it as what is now called a decay product) came up with the water, or somehow in certain areas, or some other way, we would expect to see some areas of elevated iridium, no?

Iridium is not a decay product, I don't know what you are talking about.

dad wrote:

Sorry I don't understand.

Salts may have come up before the flood left the North sea covered, with the water that used to come up from subteranean chambers under the earth.

Based on what evidence?

dad wrote:The way they may have come up would be such, perhaps, that the (now) hard underlying rock is undistubed.

I don't understand the significance of this? And how can you use an assumption as an explanation?

dad wrote:

The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.

It only leads where undelying assumptions take it.

The fact is there are deposits, and meteors have been recovered, observered to enter our atmostphere, and found in the inter planetary space. Do you have an alternative explanation? Other than your own beleifs do you see any problems with this analysis?

dad wrote:

So all meteorites have a terrestrial origin?

How would I know? I am open to the possibility many do.

Yes but is there a way to differentiate? Iridium is rare in the Earth's crust, and common in space. This is because its a heavier element and tends to be found in the center of objects. So would it be logical to say that if iridium is found in a meteor that it is less likely to be terrestrial?

dad wrote:"a new explanation for comet origins will be proposed and tested. It appears that the “fountains of the great deep” and the power of expanding, high-pressure, supercritical water exploding into the vacuum of space launched comets throughout the solar system as the flood began.

So all comets have a terrestrial origin? What proof other than your own imagination do you have for this?

dad wrote:Other known forces would have assembled the expelled rocks and muddy droplets into larger bodies resembling comets in size, number, density, composition, spin, texture, strength, chemistry (organic and inorganic), and orbital characteristics"

Do you have the empirical evidence for this, Do you have mathematical models showing how comets could have arrived at their current orbits? Or is this just story telling?

dad wrote:"Asteroids are composed of rocks expelled from Earth. The size distribution of asteroids does show that at least part of a planet fragmented. Although an energy source is not available to explode and disperse an entire Earth-size planet, the “fountains of the great deep” could have easily launched one 2,400th of the Earth—the mass of all asteroids combined."

Why only earth? How do you explain the other planets? It seems that you are trying to force everything to have been caused by a great upwelling of water.

dad wrote:ttp://www.creationscience.com/Asteroids2.html#wp1406839
Now, when we combine the idea with the split, it starts to look pretty good.

All it is, is an idea. Where is the evidence, the empirical data?

dad wrote:

Assumptions? These tentative conclusions are based on projectile remains.

But is not the composition of comets speculative?

We do know that comets are less dense and contain more water from observations.

dad wrote:Also, if it was not projectile remains in some cases to begin with, but 'ejectiles' from below, it would change the picture.

Yes, but what evidence do you have in support of this idea?

dad wrote:

That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?

Hey, we know this stuff is under the earth.

You emphasized this and neglected to inform readers that it can also be found in space. It's simply a type of rock. You are trying to mislead.

dad wrote:"Basalt: the most common volcanic rock on Earth. Composed of essential calcic plagioclase and pyroxene, sometimes with olivine, feldspathoids or interstitial quartz. "

I don't see it saying that olivine means from below. Do you???

dad wrote:http://www.amonline.net.au/geoscience/e ... sclass.htm
"Upper mantle (measured from the base of the crust down to 400 km). 10 % of the Earth's total mass.

Density of 3.25 gm/cm3 to 3.40 gm/cm3
Composition: Peridotite (e.g. olivine + pyroxene)... "
http://www.area604.ca/Articles/Off_Topi ... e_of_.html

dad wrote:

That doesn't take away from the fact that you lied about the definition of olivine. Someone is being insincere.

It's down there, as well as up there, how can you deny it? Are you sincere?

I never denied it, you are attempting to ignore the fact that you were trying to lead readers to the conclusion that it must be terrestrial. Olivine is a type of rock, it can be found anywhere, within the Earth and extra-terrestrially.

dad wrote:

Because you took two sentances, paragraphs apart and juxtaposed them as if they were continuous.

The mix is strange, and perhaps better explained other ways. I don't post whole pages, but the bits that are relevant.

You pulled two sentences together which implied something the paper never intended.

dad wrote:You haven't addressed the strange mix, you just seem interested in paragraph bits that don't omit the old age baloney, as I tend to do, as the assumptions and dates are virtually meaningless most of the time!

Look what you posted!

dad wrote:So, I don't assume a present world type of intrusion, therefore, until the evidence is clear, I reserve judgement.

"a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment. "

Here's the actual quote.
"Chromium isotopic ratios are homogeneous within the earth, therefore this isotopic anomalies exclude a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment."

How is that "omit the old age baloney, as I tend to do"

That's just misleading! Period.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: ..Don't you see you are assuming something and then forcing the observations to fit? Don't you have estabilish the flood first? How can you use this as evidence for the flood and at the same time use the flood to change interpretation?

Old agers assume a same past then force things to fit. I assume a different past, and not much forcing is needed.

Iridium is not a decay product, I don't know what you are talking about.

Well, you likely are right, it doesn't matter, really. In that case the Iridium would have come up.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the evidence that no evidence exists to suggest that a different than PO was here then. Therefore there is no evidence to assume the present is indicitive of the past. One way ir the other, no evidence exists. From that point, of realizing it is speculation on what kind of past it was, we have nothing left that is evidenced and must rely on interpretation of the evidence we do have. Baseless old age PO past speculation is of no more value than the documentation of the bible, to say the least. So it is clear from the bible, things like this were a real possiblity, cause subteranean water did come up.

I don't understand the significance of this? And how can you use an assumption as an explanation?

Nothing else by you or I can be used! That is the point. Either the past was the same or it was different. No evidence exists to claim either, so to go into the past all must assume.

The fact is there are deposits, and meteors have been recovered, observered to enter our atmostphere, and found in the inter planetary space. Do you have an alternative explanation? Other than your own beleifs do you see any problems with this analysis?

So what? meteors have Iridium, and it is under the earth, take your pick. But don't claim it also is in comets, unless we have some evidence.

Yes but is there a way to differentiate? Iridium is rare in the Earth's crust, and common in space.

But in a different past, things from deep in the earth may have gotten into space.

This is because its a heavier element and tends to be found in the center of objects. So would it be logical to say that if iridium is found in a meteor that it is less likely to be terrestrial?

Depends on what assumptions you use! If you assume that the past had nothing coming up, you get one answer, if there was, you get another.

So all comets have a terrestrial origin? What proof other than your own imagination do you have for this?

I ask you the same. Just because your assumptions are so ingrained matters not, unless they were also evidenced!

Do you have the empirical evidence for this, Do you have mathematical models showing how comets could have arrived at their current orbits? Or is this just story telling?

That was Walt Brown, and he had certain assumptions like you do. In his scenario, I think he followed the laws of physics. But, regardless, you have no evidence, so don't question his assumptions till you do!

Why only earth? How do you explain the other planets? It seems that you are trying to force everything to have been caused by a great upwelling of water.

You use your assumptions, we'll use ours. We happen to be privy to the jnowledge we are not a meaningless speck, but the cat's meow in this universe.

All it is, is an idea. Where is the evidence, the empirical data?

You can't test the future of the past, you are limited to the present. Try to venture out of that, and you go armed only with belief and assumptions about the evidences we see.

We do know that comets are less dense and contain more water from observations.

So what? There are still assumptions that are needed to be made either way.

Yes, but what evidence do you have in support of this idea?

No evidence against the merged past, where the waters came up. No evidence for a PO past you claim. Open and shut case!

You emphasized this and neglected to inform readers that it can also be found in space. It's simply a type of rock. You are trying to mislead.

No, assuming a same past, and only the one source is the misleader here, and that's your baby!

dad wrote:"Basalt: the most common volcanic rock on Earth. Composed of essential calcic plagioclase and pyroxene, sometimes with olivine, feldspathoids or interstitial quartz. "

I don't see it saying that olivine means from below. Do you???

Where do you think basalt comes from, the moon?

I never denied it, you are attempting to ignore the fact that you were trying to lead readers to the conclusion that it must be terrestrial. Olivine is a type of rock, it can be found anywhere, within the Earth and extra-terrestrially.

Hey I point out it is in both places, cause you were trying to use only space as a source, let's stay real here!

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying! ...
I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context. ...
Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits. ...
Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???

I am inclined to believe this is done with no intent of misrepresentation or deception. As Bgood has read the posts he is responding to, it must be clear to him that the original poster, with his ideas of merged worlds and whatnot, does not have the slightest familiarity with mainstream scientific thought, both current scientific knowledge as well as how science (and scientists) work.

sandy_mcd wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying! ...
I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context. ...
Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits. ...
Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???

I am inclined to believe this is done with no intent of misrepresentation or deception. As Bgood has read the posts he is responding to, it must be clear to him that the original poster, with his ideas of merged worlds and whatnot, does not have the slightest familiarity with mainstream scientific thought, both current scientific knowledge as well as how science (and scientists) work.

Ha. If I use part of an article, I do not say all the article is good. The old age bits, and assumptions I consider irelevant, becuase they are whatever the author or you might think.
It is not what I don't know of science old agers don't like, but what I do know. One thing I know is that old age speculations based on a physical only present are not supportable. So you can talk of your fantasy past and whatnot all you like, that's all it is.
So called scientific thought as relates to the past is unscientific belief. Get off your high horse.

dad wrote:Ha. If I use part of an article, I do not say all the article is good.

But the fact that you cut out half of a sentence to make a statement fit your argument, and the rest of the statement itself says something completely different, that is what is underhanded about your approach. I could use a similar approach...I could say "God...does...not...exist" and say it is a quote from the Bible. I would be right, but all the pieces I am quoting are from different places and I have simply juxtaposed them.

dad wrote:One thing I know is that old age speculations based on a physical only present are not supportable.

We know yesterday was like today, the day before that, the year before that, the decade before that, the 70 years before that, the 100 years before that (depending on how old you are), and from what we can gain from writings, we know that it's been like it is now for several hundred years. At what point do you stop using the word "present" for the ways things are and begin to say that it's been like it is now in the past?

dad wrote:

BGood wrote:

dad wrote:"Basalt: the most common volcanic rock on Earth. Composed of essential calcic plagioclase and pyroxene, sometimes with olivine, feldspathoids or interstitial quartz. "

I don't see it saying that olivine means from below. Do you???

Where do you think basalt comes from, the moon?

I never denied it, you are attempting to ignore the fact that you were trying to lead readers to the conclusion that it must be terrestrial. Olivine is a type of rock, it can be found anywhere, within the Earth and extra-terrestrially.

Hey I point out it is in both places, cause you were trying to use only space as a source, let's stay real here!

No you didn't here's your original quote.

dad wrote:carbonaceous chondrite ..
A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic compounds.."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... bchon.html
(Olivine something deep under the earth in case you didn't catch the relation.)

You are either confused or are deceiving us. I am not willing to continue discussions in which a participant is unwilling or unable to be honest.

Sorry.

thereal wrote:

dad wrote:Ha. If I use part of an article, I do not say all the article is good.

But the fact that you cut out half of a sentence to make a statement fit your argument, and the rest of the statement itself says something completely different,

It might be a shock to the system of some evos, but all dating is wrong, for the far past. Their assumptions hunches and guesses are so dumb they are not usually worth the inclusion, so I put the things that are relative, and I think have some merit. The rest you can do what you want with, don't blame me.

that is what is underhanded about your approach. I could use a similar approach...I could say "God...does...not...exist" and say it is a quote from the Bible. I would be right, but all the pieces I am quoting are from different places and I have simply juxtaposed them.

False, I clip a complete thought, not editorial theft. If it was the way you say, I wouldn't put the link for all to read.

We know yesterday was like today, the day before that, the year before that, the decade before that, the 70 years before that, the 100 years before that (depending on how old you are), and from what we can gain from writings, we know that it's been like it is now for several hundred years. At what point do you stop using the word "present" for the ways things are and begin to say that it's been like it is now in the past?

The way I have defined present is from the split to the merge. About 4400 years ago in the past, or a century or so after the flood, is where I see the split as happening. In the future, I see the merge coming as this temporary heavens pass away, and a new heavens and earth are revealed. It is a pretty clear window of time.

That's a lot of explanations. Well done! Was really interesting to read.