Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 12:43 PM
74 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,190 Year: 24,031/28,606 Month: 1,332/1,786 Week: 194/423 Day: 31/73 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
30NextFF
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 16 of 445 (490864)
12-09-2008 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
Peg, you seem to be taking a very superficial look at the evidence and then jumping to the conclusion you want without thinking it through. That's no way to get to the truth.

If you are really interested in honest discussion, choose an example. Take a GOOD look at the evidence - find the most reliable in-depth sources you can - and present your reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 2830
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 445 (490866)
12-09-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
Dating IS iffy, different labs have given different dates... an example of such was in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans.
First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. then the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

You are very confused. At least put some effort into getting your claims coherent and the facts correct

You are referring to the KBS Tuff. It is a difficult-to-date formation comprised of grains from several sources. The original date was 2.6 million years, which excited Richard Leakey because a hominid fossil was found below (not in) the tuff; that would push Man's origin way back, a position he championed. But independent methods of dating (especially pig index fossils) showed that this was unlikely to be correct. So scientists investigated and eventually found a repeatable and verifiable method for separating the components of the tuff, dated them by multiple independent methods (some involving argon, some not) in different labs, and obtained consilient dates around 1.85 million years. All in all a triumph of the scientific method.

KBS Tuff dating

So if the results of radiometric dating are not consistent, then their is something wrong with the method and it cant be trusted.

99.999% of the results of radiometric dating are consistent with other results, both radiometric (based on different and independent isotope systems and methods) and non-radiometric. This is far better than, say, any medical test. Next time your doctor wants to carry out some test tell him/her no thanks; you require 100% consistency and no test provides that, therefore the test is useless.

Edited by JonF, : Add link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8586
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 18 of 445 (490880)
12-09-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Sources
Peg, you may not listen to this but it's an attempt to help a bit.

You have been lied to! The sources you have used for your information are not honest. They leave facts out, make facts up and do whatever else is possible to mislead you.

You can't and shouldn't accept that as correct right away but you must start to entertain the possibility if you are going to learn anything. The dating question is just one area where they lie and lie again.

ABE
As an example you might want to invest some time reviewing this link:
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

Edited by NosyNed, : added link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 65 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 19 of 445 (490884)
12-09-2008 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
Hi, Peg.

Peg writes:

So if the results of radiometric dating are not consistent, then their is something wrong with the method and it cant be trusted.

You're right: there are still things wrong with radiometric dating.

There are also things wrong with cars and airplanes. And computers. I am currently suffering through an ear infection, which clearly proves that there is something wrong with my ears, and that I therefore shouldn’t trust a thing I hear with them.

And, nevermind the invention of stainless steel and teflon, either: the fact that people made pots out of lead in the 1800’s is all the evidence I need that cookware is entirely “iffy” when it comes to my health.

[/sarcasm]

Problems with a technology or system only show that the system needs to be improved upon, not that it needs to be scrapped. You can pick any classic example you want---the light bulb, the airplane, horse-riding, etc.---and you’ll find that, in every case, the system only succeeded after numerous set-backs and bugs were resolved.

And, as JonF briefly explained in Message 17, such improvements have already been done on radiometric dating, such that it is now much more reliable than it used to be. With more sensitive equipment, better understanding of geology, and about 100 years of experience and accumulated knowledge, science has learned how to rectify many of the inconsistencies in its dating system and generate a much more accurate construction of past chronology.

-----

Peg writes:

that article shows that along side the mammoth fossil, they pulled up a "The hunt, involving 75 people, also unearthed the leg bone and vertebra from an Ice Age deer and belemnites, the remains of squid-like creatures from the Jurassic period, some 150m years ago"

Why, yes, it does. My apologies to you for missing that. It also says that it was a woolly rhinoceros, not a mammoth. Again, my apologies for my brain fart.

Further, you are reading what is commonly understood as secondary literature, meaning that it was written by somebody who was told what had happened, not by somebody who actually knows what happened.

-----

Peg writes:

no, my suggestion is that perhaps the earth is STILL flooded by water

Right.

And you suggested this based on the observation that there are mountains underwater, the only interpretation of which is that you think mountains do not natural occur underwater, but must only come from terrestrial mountains that were flooded by God.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 20 of 445 (491032)
12-11-2008 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hi Peg,

You bring up a good point about these sea mounts as Flood evidence. It has been recorded some of these mounts rise and fall quickly as in the example of Graham Island in the Med (rose and fell within only a few months), Surtsey, several islands in the Alutian chain, etc. Of course there is abundant sea life living over the ones that sit just blow sea level.

Also there are several huge submarine calderas (collapsed volcanoes) all over the place. These are the really ‘bad boys’, when they blew during the flood land went down, in huge masses. Remember in Genesis ch1 the Word says God gathered the waters into ‘seas’. Before the flood there was obviously more land than water. After the flood, well we obviously now have much more water than land.

These submarine volcanic features are simply wrecked remnants from the global flood. If you study closely the bathymetry of the ocean floor, it is obvious that the ocean basins are basically giant land wrecks and you can clearly see where land was destroyed by mega eruptions, especially in the Pacific.

On the radiometric dating game, here’s a perplexing puzzle for ya:
According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ‘only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years. So, I’m curious what might have been ‘holding up’ the oceans for approx. 3.3 billion years before the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, was ‘born’? Anybody got any ideas???

Cheers mate!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2008 2:40 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:50 AM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2008 1:11 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3251
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 21 of 445 (491039)
12-11-2008 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 12:25 AM


Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
Talking the Pacific Ocean basin, you have 3 varieties of mountains, all volcanic:

1) Islands, such as Hawaii.
2) Atolls, such as the "blasted" Bikini.
3) Gyotes, which are like atolls except they've sunk faster than the coral reef could keep up.
3) Maybe volcanoes that never grew to reach the surface.

I may be over-generalizing, so geologists are welcome to correct me.

Now the Atoll and gyote mountains are flat-topped because they once were above or at sea level, subject to erosion (things don't erode much below the wave action level). Their peaks, however, may now be below sea level. My God, how did this happen? Well, one thing is that sea level has risen since the end of the last ice age. The second is that as sea floor spreading happens (more coming on this below) the sea floor sinks deeper (there is an explanation why, but I'm not going to get into it now).

Also there are several huge submarine calderas (collapsed volcanoes) all over the place.

Example please? I personally don't know of such a thing.

That magic flood can cause anything, can't it? :rolleyes:

If you study closely the bathymetry of the ocean floor, it is obvious that the ocean basins are basically giant land wrecks

The ocean basins are totally different from the continental areas. The origins are different and the rock types are (largely) different.

According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ‘only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years.

That's because the oceanic crust is continuously being created new at mid-ocean spreading centers and is also continuously being lost as it is subducted underneath the continents. The maximum elapsed time that has been found for that mid-ocean ridge to subduction zone trip is your 200 million years.

There are examples of oceanic crust having been thrust up onto the continents. Such continental remnants of oceanic crust are called ophiolites. One famous area is in Cyprus. That is fairly young, but ophiolites have been found as far back as the pre-Cambrian.

By the way, the ocean waters are there because the basins are there, not the other way around.

By the way number two - Lake Superior is essentially a lake in a stunted ocean basin. Back about 1.1 billion years ago there was a volcanic spreading center in it's basin.

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for — but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 12:25 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:44 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 22 of 445 (491052)
12-11-2008 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 12:25 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
ARCHITECT-426 writes:

On the radiometric dating game, here’s a perplexing puzzle for ya:
According to mainstream geology, the oceanic crust is ‘only’ 200 million years old or so while the continents are a whopping 3.5 billion years. So, I’m curious what might have been ‘holding up’ the oceans for approx. 3.3 billion years before the ocean crust, or 70% of our planet, was ‘born’? Anybody got any ideas???

Minnemooseus has already addressed this, so I just want to express my gratitude for this fine example of the paradoxical combination of confidence and ignorance. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, we are all ignorant of most things, but to declare your ignorance with such confidence, well, it just takes the breath away. Thanks.

More seriously, it doesn't make sense that you know about the relative youth of the ocean floor without being aware of the geological processes that are involved, so someone or some web site or some book is misleading you. Could you tell us where you got your information?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 12:25 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:48 PM Percy has responded

    
roxrkool
Member
Posts: 1489
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 23 of 445 (491072)
12-11-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 12:25 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Wow. I am at a loss for words.

Have you ever picked up a geology book and taken the time to actually read about the science you so gleefully distort and misrepresent?

The subjects of your last post are things I learned about during my first year of study at the university and that was nearly 20 years ago.

Maybe it's time to start a thread on architecture and see how you like it...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 12:25 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:54 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 24 of 445 (491099)
12-11-2008 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
12-11-2008 2:40 AM


Re: Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
quote:
Example please? I personally don't know of such a thing.

You bet, always obliged to provide scientific evidence. As we continue to map and explore the great ocean basins, more and more of these volcanic wrecks will be discovered:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02aabstracts/Yuasa-INV.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/9636/30461/01405643.pdf?temp=x
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0804-061
http://www.mindat.org/loc-134803.html
http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02aabstracts/Oshima-INV.pdf
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/april04/april04.html
http://www.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/fmaeno/kikai/kikaicaldera.html
http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/7/813
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031222.shtml
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_asia/kikai/kikai.html
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/ifree/jp/05result/IFREE_Report_for_2003-2004/honbun/02_10.pdf
Macauley Caldera
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pibhmc/pibhmc_cnmi.htm
http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/pibhmc/CNMI_images/maug_10m_caldera.jpg
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiVolcanicMechanisms.html
http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Seamounts/Seam-NearRidge.htm
http://www.volcano.si.edu/volcanoes/region04/kermadec/monowai/3303mon1.jpg
list of volcanoes, note the submarine ones:
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/volcanoes/alpha.html
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ecalais/teaching/gmt/world_volcanoes

quote:
That magic flood can cause anything, can't it?

No magic needed. The scientific evidence is everywhere along with known scientific geophysical mechanisms observed and in place in order to make such a catastrophic event occur.

quote:
That's because the oceanic crust is continuously being created new at mid-ocean spreading centers and is also continuously being lost as it is subducted underneath the continents.

Obviously you (and countless others) have taken this theory as the ‘geological gospel model’. I’ve done my due diligence on this model, from both sides of the coin. I even approached it from an ‘unbiased’ position believe it or not. It wasn’t until I thoroughly reviewed the information, studied the ‘tectonic’ formations (terrestrial and submarine), and volcanism, that I have concluded that it still does not solve all of the geological ‘problems’ and virtually does not work.

Examples:

1. It is assumed that the MOR’s spread the ocean floor via volcanism. Well, OK. If we now study volcanic edifices high and low we know that they rise vertically. Sure, they certainly cause horizontal damage to surrounding crust, but their ‘spreading’ is due to build-up and viscosity of magmas spreading out over existing strata, not ‘pushing it out of the way’ so to speak. When volcanism pushes strata ‘out of the way’, it happens vertically. And of course, you need to ‘get out of the way’ when that happens.

2. In order for the PT model to work, the spreading and subducting need to be continuous thus causing continuous horizontal movement, in all kinds of directions I must add. Well what we observe is, I’ll put it a bit more politely this time, minimal and even stagnant movement.

3. No volcanism has been recorded (that I know of) at the MOR’s. Only hydrovolcanism or hydrothermal vents (black smokers). There are pillow lavas in areas (on top of parts of the formations, not at the very ridges) which is no surprise since the MOR’s consist of a bunch of fractures that would allow some magma to squeeze through.

4. Volcanic edifices are typically circular and ovoid, especially after they have blown. They occur in linear arrangements of course along fractures, but again, the geomorphology of terrestrial and submarine volcanic edifices do not come close to being similar to the geomorphology of the MOR’s. Furthermore, when volcanism occurs over a long fracture, we get flood basalt such as the Snake River basin and the Deccan Traps. Again, volcanism spreads new rock out over existing strada, and can be thousands of feet thick. Of course when this actually did happen at the MOR’s, we ended up with new land; Iceland, ON TOP OF the ocean crust.

5. It was first assumed that at subduction zones it was the friction causing the melt for volcanism. Well we know there’s not enough of that occurring obviously, now volcanologists ‘need’ subduction zones to provide the dissolved water in the magmas from the ‘wet’ sediments. Problem is the sediments, if ‘slab pull’ were to actually occur, would be ‘scraped’ like drywall mud off a knife and then piled up in the basins. Now we have 2 more problems: we now have a ‘dry’ basaltic crust being pulled in (not much water in those) and ‘piling’ of sediments in the trenches. This is not observed either.

6. Subduction zones transition into continental shelves as well as simply ending. This is evident in the S. American continent and the Aleutians.

7. The MOR’s have very small seismic events. Sure there is pressure and movement, but if real ‘spreading’ were occurring, we’d have much larger ‘trimmer’s if not major seismic events. Not happening.

8. Basalt is crumbly, very crumbly. In fact if you ‘zoom out’ and look at the ocean crust and the continents from space and consider this ‘mass movement’, well these great masses at a much larger scale simply become a pile of dust. In other words, scientists do not consider scaling laws in the theory. When you push a giant sand pile, it falls apart. If continents moves in great mass, they’d fall apart, even if ever so slow.

9. Of course other problematic examples pointed out from your own peers that seem to be totally ignored.

10. It just looks better to have 10 reasons than 9...

Those major submarine geological features are the result of other major geophysical events. You brought up a good example of the disaster at Bikini. Nuclear ballistics has made great advancements for volcanology. This is how the base surge phenomena of major eruptions was confirmed. Since major volcanic eruptions can dwarf nuclear explosions, maybe we should study ballistics a bit more closely.

quote:
The maximum elapsed time that has been found for that mid-ocean ridge to subduction zone trip is your 200 million years.

If this were the case then crust at continental margins should be the oldest, while crust right at the MOR’s should be, well relatively brand new. Correct?

In addition, the MOR’s where ‘ocean floor production’ occurs is on the Atlantic side, while most ‘subduction’ occurs in the Pacific (MOR’s in the Pacific are minimal, sporadic, and not continuous and appear to be just a bunch of faults), so with this fact it would be reasonable to conclude that the Pacific crust would be much, much older (closer to billions of years old like the continents) than the Atlantic crust. This is not the case and thus we have a huge time gap to fill and very old continents to cross. Of course with these huge timeframes, anything can happen, as goes mainstream geological ‘logic’.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines to make things more readable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-11-2008 2:40 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Coyote, posted 12-11-2008 6:59 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:06 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 25 of 445 (491101)
12-11-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
12-11-2008 8:50 AM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Percy you know what can happen when you assume, you can make everyone look like a bunch of donkeys. What I find very interesting and typical with evolutionists is that when scientific Flood evidence along with blatant problems with currently accepted scientific theories are presented from others, they are immediately rejected. No one takes the time to say “hmm, you’ve got a point, but here is how we understand this", or to simply admit that the current accepted theories have flaws. Recognizing these flaws and working to resolve them can make science progress. We do it all the time in my profession. Here’s the other thing, you really don’t know what I or others know do you? So please stop making assumptions.

The reason I am confident of this huge geological paradox, is the fact that I AM confident that it IS a huge geological paradox.

If there is ocean crust older than a couple hundred mil, then you guys need to update Wikipedia. And no, I do not get all of my info off the net, but also collect geology books. I like learning exactly how rocks are ‘deposited’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_crust

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by bluescat48, posted 12-11-2008 5:08 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 28 by kuresu, posted 12-11-2008 5:09 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 12-11-2008 8:15 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 1086 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 26 of 445 (491102)
12-11-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by roxrkool
12-11-2008 1:11 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hey Roxrkool, please see my post above.

If I still designed buildings the way I did 20 years ago, I would not be making much progress would I?

And NO, I stay away from Arch forums! I get enough criticism from the general public, my clients and my peers. All I can do is plant some trees to try to hide my mistakes! Seriously perhaps this is the root of the problem. I am able to take criticism and certainly try and gain from it. Perhaps geologists along with other scientists could do the same, do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by roxrkool, posted 12-11-2008 1:11 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2008 8:25 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 653 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 27 of 445 (491105)
12-11-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 4:48 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
scientific Flood evidence

Please produce some as I have never seen any flood "evidence" on hear at all only useless myths, maybe's, ifs and attempts to bring out one problem by providing several others in the process. ie Water from the earth's mantle or a water canopy. The creos' evidence is rejected due to no evidence .


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:48 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1738 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 28 of 445 (491106)
12-11-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 4:48 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
The reason I am confident of this huge geological paradox, is the fact that I AM confident that it IS a huge geological paradox

Game over. If that's not an argument by authority, I don't know what is. That would be a logical fallacy. Fallacies undermine arguments. So as said, game over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:48 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4747
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 29 of 445 (491116)
12-11-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
Let's start with something simple.

Do you accept the date given by most biblical scholars of about 4,350 years ago for the global flood?

A simple yes or no would suffice; please don't give me a huge page of text to wade through.

If you agree with this date then we can proceed. If not, please specify a date and your reasons 1) for that date, and 2) why biblical scholars are wrong.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:44 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 13286
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 30 of 445 (491120)
12-11-2008 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 4:44 PM


Re: Oceanic crust comes, and oceanic crust goes
Hi Architect-426,

Your claim was that the flood was responsible for many collapsed volcanic calderas spread numerously about the sea floor. Minnemooseus wasn't questioning the existence of collapsed volcanic calderas. He was questioning your claim that they were caused by the flood. I only had to look at your first link:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/cc02aabstracts/Yuasa-INV.pdf

This link says:

I thus propose that the submarine caldera structures were produced by consecutive submarine phreatomagmatic explosions at the top of ascending vesicular magma, but not by collapse of basement rocks upon catastrophic pyroclastic eruption.

This completely contradicts your claim of flood causation.

Do you have any examples supporting your claim?

Please don't provide a list of bare links again. Here at EvC Forum you're expected to provide arguments in your own words and provide links only as references.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:44 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-07-2010 1:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
30NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014