Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 160 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-30-2014 11:53 AM
89 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 738,986 Year: 24,827/28,606 Month: 2,128/1,786 Week: 343/647 Day: 27/51 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Pre-Flood Waters?
meanbadger
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 36 (81090)
01-27-2004 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Yaro
01-26-2004 9:21 PM


First off, why is this such a far fetched assumption when there is nothing in the universe to indicate that things HAVENT worked allong the same rules?

*Along the same lines there is nothing to indicate things have always been the way they are...

And if indeed such an atmosphere existed 5000 years ago, wouldn't it have left evidence of it's presence? Better yet, wouldn't it have been subject to the same phisical laws?

*The physical laws haven't changed...and yes there has been evidence, such as amber found with increased pressure and oxygen within it...how does this amber form with air bubbles like this if not for a different atmospheric pressure???

If the atmosphere was full of water varpor as the YECs propose, that is enugh vapor to inundate the whole world, the atmosphere would create an incredible amount of pressure, not to mention an incredible amount of heat. That is what the above response means.

So much watter in the atmosphere would have cooked the surface of the earth under it's intense presure.

*I don't recall saying all the water was in the atmosphere...

The question is, where is this ice canopy, and where is the evidence for it?

*Evidence for an ice canopy or vapor shield in the upper atomsphere include: palm trees found beneath the ice at the poles...what better evidence for a different world at one point, that world being more like a green house? How about people growing larger, plants growing larger, etc? How did redwoods grow in Canada at one point in the past since they require such a specific climate to prosper? Wooly mammoths frozen standing up...with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs, would likely require a very fast freezing process which could not have occurred naturally on our earth today.

The amount of water that it would take to flood the world is astronomical. That amount of watter in the atmosphere at any given time, would increase the pressure to an unheard of degree, and cook everything in the planet!

*Just because there is a lot of water, does not mean the atmosphere would contain it all...if that is the case, why aren't the oceans filling the atmosphere today and frying us all? Again the assumption is that the flood occurred only from the rains, not from water beneath the surface of the planet. Also the assumption remains that it would take more water than is here to flood the world. This assumption requires that the mountains have always been as high as they are today, I've seen no proof of this.

Kend Hovind is a fraud.

*Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say. I am hopeful that our conversation will not deteriorate into namecalling as a means of discrediting someone's opinions

*It has become obvious to me that I have jumped into my first discussion on too large a scale. I have neither the time nor the energy to continue a discussion on this large a scale. I would be interested in some direction on how to make my posts more readable, putting lines above and below quotes, etc. if you don't mind offering some help there.

Thanks again for the interesting dialog.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Yaro, posted 01-26-2004 9:21 PM Yaro has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Yaro, posted 01-27-2004 12:31 PM meanbadger has not yet responded
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 01-27-2004 12:41 PM meanbadger has responded
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 01-27-2004 2:47 PM meanbadger has not yet responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 2969 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 32 of 36 (81117)
01-27-2004 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:28 AM


First off, please learn to use the quote feture. What you do is, at the beginning of a quote type {qs} except with square braces. At the end of the quote, you write {/qs}, again replacing the curly braces with square ones.

Hi I'm a Quote!

Ok, now on to your post.

Along the same lines there is nothing to indicate things have always been the way they are...

On the contrary, we have plenty of good scientific evidence which paints a clear picture of the various environmental conditions the earth has gone thrugh over the millenia.

The physical laws haven't changed...and yes there has been evidence, such as amber found with increased pressure and oxygen within it...how does this amber form with air bubbles like this if not for a different atmospheric pressure???

Huh? I have seen chunks of modern amber with air bubbles in them. Why does this necisseraly indicate different atmospheric pressure? It just means at some point during the ambers formation some air got trapped in it.

Perhapse if you could support this statement with a valid scientific argument we can discuss it further. As of now I see no reason this should indicate the kinds of pressures we are talking about.

I don't recall saying all the water was in the atmosphere...

The amount of watter required exists no where on earth, wheather you put it under the ground, or above the ground. It is just not on this plannet. Ever ask yourself where that watter went?

I don't think you realize the amount of watter required, it is an amount almost twice the oceans. There is no way that amount of watter can go unacounted for, it had to go somewhere.

Evidence for an ice canopy or vapor shield in the upper atomsphere include: palm trees found beneath the ice at the poles...what better evidence for a different world at one point, that world being more like a green house?

Can you please provide a refrence for this Palm tree find. If perhapse you can come up with an article from a peer review jurnal, or any other relevant scientific source, we could discuss this at length. As of now it proves nothing.

Even if such a palm tree existed how does it prove an ice canopy?

How about people growing larger, plants growing larger, etc?

You are saying 'growing' do you mean today? As I understand humans are actually getting shorter.

Or do you mean back in the high pressure days

Well, find me the evidence for giants and I'll be a happy man

Didn't you read any of the links I provided? I covered this. Read the Carl Baugh page since he is the main perveior of this nonsense.

How did redwoods grow in Canada at one point in the past since they require such a specific climate to prosper?

I dunno! Wow it's eerie isn't it! The creepy part is... how come they are still alive? And well suited to their current climet?

Do you have any proof that redwoods, or other large trees, CANT grow in our current climet? I can think of a few, rainforest Trees, Those giant cactuses, bailbob trees, desert palms, etc. Lots of big trees, regular atmosphere.

Wooly mammoths frozen standing up...with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs, would likely require a very fast freezing process which could not have occurred naturally on our earth today.

Ya, it's calld an avalanche. This is an oooold one. Again, can you provide a reference?

Just because there is a lot of water, does not mean the atmosphere would contain it all...if that is the case, why aren't the oceans filling the atmosphere today and frying us all?

Then where did the watter come from, and where did the watter go?

It had to evaporate, by definition it couldn't just soak into the ground. The world was inundated after all.

Where is the water?

Again the assumption is that the flood occurred only from the rains, not from water beneath the surface of the planet.

Again, the quantaty of water required simply does not exist on this earth. Sorry, it's not real.

Also the assumption remains that it would take more water than is here to flood the world. This assumption requires that the mountains have always been as high as they are today, I've seen no proof of this.

Oh my lord. You didn't bother following any of my links did you? This has been covered so many times. We have heard the hyper-plate tektoniks thing, that would be impossible!

Do you know what happens when plates move the slightest of centameters... earthquakes, tidal waves, volcanoes!

Thats only a few fractions of an inch. The last big earthquake in california saw the san andreas fault skip like an inch and a half. To actualy have tektonoc plates slaming into each other at such an accelerated rate would cause unspeakable havoc.

Have you ever heard of krakatoa? It was a small island with a very large volcano. The island exploded.

http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/asia/question879.html

Tidal waves and tremors were felt around the world. The sound was said to reach as far as europe.

Now, if the plates were speeding about the glope like race cars, crashing into each other and raising Evarest in a matter of years. We are talking about an incredably massive, literaly earth shattering, calamity!

Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say. I am hopeful that our conversation will not deteriorate into namecalling as a means of discrediting someone's opinions

My friend, belive me, the man is worthless. Creation scientists wont touch him. He has been proven a lier and his theories are full of holes. Go to AIG, a creationist site, read what they have to say about hovind.

Im not name calling, Im just calling it as it is. Hovind is a disgrace with nothing worth-while to contribute to this debate.

It has become obvious to me that I have jumped into my first discussion on too large a scale. I have neither the time nor the energy to continue a discussion on this large a scale. I would be interested in some direction on how to make my posts more readable, putting lines above and below quotes, etc. if you don't mind offering some help there.

Sure, I added it up top.

To make the debate more palatable, how about you pick one issue to talk about. We will discuss it at length.

Also, please go back to my other post and read the links I provided. I worked hard on those.

Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-27-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:28 AM meanbadger has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 36 (81121)
01-27-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:28 AM


Picking a few of the more egregious mistakes:

Along the same lines there is nothing to indicate things have always been the way they are...

Er, yes there is. Astronomical observations such as supernova 1987A indicate that radioactive decay rates have remained the same for at least hundreds of thousands of years. Other astronomical observations indicate that the speed of light has not changed significantly since the Big Bang. And a whole lot of things we do not see indicate that physical laws are not changing and have not changed.

Evidence for an ice canopy or vapor shield ...

The problem with all such theories is:

1. Maintaining such a canopy requires pressures and tmperatures that would destroy essentially all life.

2. Getting the water to the Earth's surface in the form of water would release enough heat to destroy all life yet again.

Most creationists who pretend to be scientific have given up on all the variants on the canopy hypothesis. The ICR concluded that, if everything were set up just right, one could get about 3 feet worth of water into the atmosphere and not raise the temperature too much (SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES). See also The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea by a former young Earth creationist.

in the upper atomsphere include: palm trees found beneath the ice at the poles...what better evidence for a different world at one point, that world being more like a green house?

Evidence for a different world, yes .. but "the world being more like a greenhouse" is only one possible explanation. "The world being more like a greenhouse" is ruled out when other evidence is examined; it's a common creationist failing to explain one tiny piece of evidence without considering other relevant evidence.

How did redwoods grow in Canada at one point in the past since they require such a specific climate to prosper

Certainly not under a vapor canopy or ice canopy. Way too hot.

Wooly mammoths frozen standing up...with undigested or rotted food in their stomachs, would likely require a very fast freezing process which could not have occurred naturally on our earth today.

Do you believe everything you read on creationist web sites? That's not too smart.

There are no known mammoths that were frozen standing up, or were suddenly frozen. From Library: Modern Documents: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Mammoths:

quote:
Take the frozen Berezovka mammoth, for instance. In its stomach were found arctic plants like conifers, tundra grasses, and sedges. Its flesh was really rather putrefied. "The excavators found the stench of the partially rotted Berezovka mammoth unbearable; even the earth in which it was buried stank." (Weber, 1980, p.15). Ancient predators had a chance to get at the carcass, which proved there was no instantaneous freezing. The unfortunate animal seems to have fallen from a river buff, possibly by getting too close to the edge and causing a slump, and broke many bones. In the muck of the floodplain below his carcass was soon frozen in (Strahler, 1987, p.381).

William R. Farrand, writing in 1961, pointed out that only 39 mammoths had been found with some of their flesh preserved. Out of those only four were found more or less intact, including the Berezovka mammoth. All of them were rotten to some extent and the evidence showed that most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing. Such things as grasses, sedges, other boreal meadow and tundra plants, a few twigs, cones, and pollen traces from highboreal and tundra trees are typical of what was found in their stomachs. Evidence indicates that some of these mammoths had died in cave-ins or had drowned. The Mamontova mammoth was probably caught in a bog while grazing the floodplain of the ancient Mamontova River. Another apparently died on a floodplain, possibly falling through river ice, and rotted mostly away before natural burial. The upright nature of many mammoth finds suggest "that they perished when a rapid thaw melted the permafrost and turned the tundra into a huge bog." (Chorlton, 1984, p.70).

...

There is no direct evidence that any mammoth simply froze to death (Farrand, 1961).

All of this evidence points to a routine scenario of life and death.


Just because there is a lot of water, does not mean the atmosphere would contain it all

True. Just because it needs about 3 times the water there is in all the Earth, and there's no place but the atmosphere to put it.

Also the assumption remains that it would take more water than is here to flood the world. This assumption requires that the mountains have always been as high as they are today, I've seen no proof of this.

Actually, you have. Are you alive? Is the surface of the Earth solid? Well, there you are. If the Earths' topography had changed to the extent you are proposing in the last hundred thousand years or so, the amount of heat released would have sterilized the entire Earth and melted a good portion of it.

Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say.

True, we should evaluate Ken's arguments on their merits. The fact that he is a fraud is not necessarily relevant.

We have evaluated Ken's arguments on their merits. They have no merit, are wrong, and in many cases he is being intentionally dishonest. Many creationists agree. Maintaining Creationist Integrity, Analyzing of Kent Hovind. Kent Hovind's Discussion of DNA: Abysmal Incompetence or Shrewd Demagoguery?, and many more.

I would be interested in some direction on how to make my posts more readable, putting lines above and below quotes,

When composing a new mesage or reply, click the "*UBB Code is ON" link at the left of the window in which you are typing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:28 AM meanbadger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by meanbadger, posted 01-29-2004 12:16 AM JonF has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 1051 days)
Posts: 6202
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 34 of 36 (81160)
01-27-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by meanbadger
01-27-2004 11:28 AM


quote:
Just because you believe someone a fraud, does not necessarily invalidate everything they say. I am hopeful that our conversation will not deteriorate into namecalling as a means of discrediting someone's opinions

To dismiss a logical argument without checking the logic behind it by calling someone a fraud is indeed a logical fallacy (called argumentum ad hominen, or something like that). But it is fair to cast doubts on the persons veracity, that is whether he is truthfully presenting facts. One should back it up, of course, but it has been amply demonstrated that Hovind is a fraud. Of course, some of the things he says may be the truth, but if you have to check each fact individually, why rely on him? Get another source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by meanbadger, posted 01-27-2004 11:28 AM meanbadger has not yet responded

  
meanbadger
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 36 (81419)
01-29-2004 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by JonF
01-27-2004 12:41 PM


Do you believe everything you read on creationist web sites? That's not too smart.

OK, let's see if this quote thing works...

Now that I've tested that, I've gotta get to bed, no time to research any responses, although I have learned from many responses to my posts that this ongoing evolution/creation debate is quite the hotbed of ideas and apparently only the sites favoring evolution have any valid scientific evidence. I plan to continue participating to some extent, however these large posts are too time consuming. As such, I'll likely move on to smaller, one topic threads where I can actually afford to put in some research time. Thanks to all who responded to these items.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 01-27-2004 12:41 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 01-29-2004 10:21 AM meanbadger has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2831
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 36 (81466)
01-29-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by meanbadger
01-29-2004 12:16 AM


apparently only the sites favoring evolution have any valid scientific evidence.

Not quite true, but it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff on creationist sites without a fair amount of background knowledge.

For example http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-179.htm, minus the last paragraph, is good work. (Dr. Aardsma left the ICR, apparently because he was too committed to believing the physical evidence, but is still a creationist.) http://www.icr.org/research/lv/lv-r05.htm is pretty good. http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp is reasonable (also see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by meanbadger, posted 01-29-2004 12:16 AM meanbadger has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014