Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8121 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-28-2014 9:18 AM
99 online now:
Bliyaal, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, vimesey (5 members, 94 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: AppleScratch
Post Volume:
Total: 734,952 Year: 20,793/28,606 Month: 1,290/2,774 Week: 173/238 Day: 5/81 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 32 of 445 (491122)
12-11-2008 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Architect-426
12-11-2008 4:54 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
Hello Architect-426

All I can do is plant some trees to try to hide my mistakes!

WIth due apologies to Frank Lloyd Wright eh?

Perhaps geologists along with other scientists could do the same, do you think?

As in when Plate Tectonics changed the field of geology? The difference is that Plate Tectonics proved itself with evidence and predictions ... you know, the scientific process.

Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.

For plate tectonics. It can even be measured!

Hey Roxrkool, please see my post above.

The one that was a "Gish-Gallop" pile of bare links?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : qs


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Architect-426, posted 12-11-2008 4:54 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Architect-426, posted 12-12-2008 12:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 445 (491136)
12-11-2008 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 10:09 AM


correction please
it may just be my comic density, my cosmic destiny or is it coin operated dunces?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 10:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 97 of 445 (491646)
12-18-2008 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by DrJones*
12-18-2008 3:35 PM


An obvious solution folks
The devil's advocate in me has to speak.

care to show your math?

The earth is 3/4 water and 1/4 land, and the land can be fit into the ocean basin without filling it. This would leave an excess of water to spread out and cover all.

Rather obviously if the hard surface of the earth (rocks soils etc) formed a perfect oblate spheroid, such that the gravitational potential was precisely the same over the whole surface, the water would spread out on top to a depth roughly 3/4 the average depth of the oceans. That ain't peanuts.

To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires the assumption that the earth is exceedingly similar to today. No creationist I know of thinks so, and thus you are not arguing about the same world. On a different earth the proportions of land and water could be entirely different. For example:

Buz in Message 93
Rrhain, to clarify my position/model, it was that if the oceans were not deep before the flood and the mountains were not high before the flood (including the submerged ones, even the present amount of water in the oceans would cover more if not all of the surface of the earth. Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.

No matter what the actual ratio was, no matter how little water there was, with a perfectly smooth hard surface you would get a film of water covering that hard surface, so really all you are arguing about whether it was 20 feet or 2000 feet ... at which point the argument is moot.

Again, this is to clarify my position which has not been addressed by Rrhain who apparently does not regard the depth of the water in his dish model as relevant to my model. It is not to further debate what I regard as the Biblical hypothesis.

This also assumes that the physical laws are not altered or held in abeyance by the supernatural powers in charge of the flood. Give water the capability of liquid hydrogen to flow uphill and it will naturally cover the earth without any change to the geometry.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1167637.ece

This type of flow would qualify under the "fountains of the deep" as the source of the waters, without needing volcanoes or huge hydrothermal blasts. Note that this would also be in accordance with the modified behavior of water during the crossing of the Red Sea, which is supposed to be due to the same supernatural actor.

Alternatively all a god would need to do is make the force of gravity at the rock\soil surface precisely the same over the whole earth and water would naturally cover everything. Topologically the earth would become a perfect oblate spheroid as far as the water was concerned.

Is this a special invocation of "god-did-it"? Not really, as the biblical line is that he very explicitly stated he dood it at the time.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by DrJones*, posted 12-18-2008 3:35 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2008 11:40 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 100 by Rrhain, posted 12-19-2008 2:05 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 102 of 445 (491695)
12-19-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by bluescat48
12-18-2008 11:40 PM


Re: An obvious solution folks
Not getting it?

Where does it say the mountains were lowered?

Why do they have to be to be covered in water? Remember that this same god makes the water divide to make a passage across the red sea. Making it flow uphill is small potatoes.

The problem is, those who are trying to argue the flood seem to be unwilling to use the "god did it" explanation. They want it to be mundane.

Except for the raining 40 days and nights and the opening up of the fountains of the deep and the destruction of the earth bit eh?

How do you explain a supernatural event without a supernatural explanation? If the explanation is mundane then the event is mundane.

Incorrect.

To argue that there is not enough water to cover the earth requires only that the eath not have a topology that makes it nothing but Florida.

Which is still effectively applying the world as we know it today ... because you are still assuming the ocean is the same (that part that is 3/4's of the known world today.

What your argument reduces to, is that if there is land above water today, then there must be land above the water before the flood. If you average out all the surface of the world you end up with a world underwater.

If the way the flood is accomplished, is to make water flow up and over the land, then there is more than enough water to do the job.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by bluescat48, posted 12-18-2008 11:40 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2008 1:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 103 of 445 (491696)
12-19-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
12-19-2008 10:28 AM


Re: No flood
They want it to be supported by science, thereby affirming their beliefs.

And for the most part they don't care if it is real science, junk science, or creation "science."

That's the nub. This issue is not whether the flood was possible, but whether there is any reason to think that it did occur.

It is possible for water to cover all the land, there is more than enough water to spread out and cover everything several hundred feet deep on average.

The problem is that there is no evidence of the interruption of life on earth in the last 3.5 billion years that would be necessary if this did in fact occur.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2008 10:28 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 105 of 445 (491813)
12-21-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rrhain
12-20-2008 1:13 AM


So why do they have to be (lowered) to be covered ...
Keeping to the thread of thought here

Because Genesis 7 says they were.

Genesis 7 says the mountains were lowered?

Now, it also says the water only rose 15 cubits which is only about 7 meters.

So that is the amount of water that flows out of the "fountains of the deep" (aka ocean basins) to cover the tops of the mountains.

Indeed, but nobody says that. Nobody says that the water in the oceans deformed itself to provide a uniform liquid shell of water perpendicular to every surface. That would certainly be a "god did it" response.

And nothing says it isn't, the issue is moot where the story is mute. Such a flow would average out topography locally, and the amount of earths surface you could see would look relatively uniform. The visibility of distance at sea is fairly limited, and easily dominated by local waves.

By pretending it was a natural ocurrence. If it's going to be a supernatural event, let it be a supernatural event.

Can you point to a creationist that believes the flood was caused by by natural processes? The whole thing is about validating a supernatural event.

It's the same as the parting of the red sea. God waved his hand and it happened.

But no, what is being argued is that there is enough water on the planet to flood the earth without any need for god to hold it in place for months on end.

No, this is what you are arguing. Creationists don't really care about the mechanism, just that the flood occurred. They know that god caused it, how he did it is not important to the fact (to them) that the flood occurred.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : /


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2008 1:13 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2008 4:32 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 112 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 1:32 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 110 of 445 (491835)
12-21-2008 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
12-21-2008 4:32 PM


Re: Flood mechanisms
But they'll make up the silliest scientific-sounding excuses for flood-related questions! And defend them to the hilt!

Agreed, but where it gets silly is where they try to shoehorn evidence into the picture. Shells on mountaintops, krakatoa volcanoes every square mile, the grand canyon, etc etc etc.

And all the while, the fossil record of life on earth provides no discernible occasion for such an event to fit into the calendar.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2008 4:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 114 of 445 (491948)
12-24-2008 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Rrhain
12-24-2008 1:32 AM


floody dynamical
Thanks Rrhain, it's really quite easy.

RAZD and I respond to each other:
quote:
quote:
quote:
RAZD: Why do they have to be to be covered in water?

Me: Because Genesis 7 says they were.

RAZD: Genesis 7 says the mountains were lowered?

No, Genesis 7 says the mountains were covered. Let's not play dumb and forget your own argument halfway through a sentence.

Yes, and the response in question was in to the issue of the mountains being LOWERED, NOT to whether or not they were COVERED -- a point you missed on the first go-round, and which you then proceeded to continue to miss on the second. It seems I know my own argument better than you do eh? I'll admit, that a comma would have helped, something I frequently forget to use (new year's resolution,, use more,).

initial response to bluescat (Message 98) in Message 102:
Where does it say the mountains were lowered?

Why do they have to be to be covered in water?

When you skip this context you still need to deal with the "to be to be" -- those that read in context see the first "to be" refers specifically to the mountains being LOWERED, while the second is in reference to questioning why they need to be LOWERED.

My argument is that the flood could be managed by a god that can divide the red sea by using similar control over water to make it cover the mountains WHERE THEY ARE, and that there is more than enough water on earth today to manage that.

But nobody calls 7 meters a "mountain."

So the flow up and onto the land only needs to be 20 feet deep to meet the documented depths. You can easily cover all the existing land today with a layer 20 ft deep, with plenty left over to float your boat.

But again, I've already accounted for that. Dump all the water into the ocean, including all underground sources, and you only raise sea level by about 250 feet. So unless we're going to say that there wasn't a single place on the entire earth higher than the Matterhorn at DisneyWorld, there isn't enough water to flood the earth.

And you are still missing the whole point.

Except the story isn't mute. It specifically states that the water "prevailed upon the earth" (meaning a flood, not a magical shell) and "rose up" (meaning a flood, not a magical shell).

Remember, the ark lands on Mt. Ararat. To do that, it has to be above as the waters "abated." But if there were a magical shell of water, then there's no way the Ark could get there since it was made below that level.

Unless you're going to say that god made the ark magically defy gravity.

Well, the mechanism already given above was that gravity was made to be perpendicular to any surface, any pendulum would point directly to any surface near it, and water would naturally flow over the land.

We're back to my previous comment: If you're going to invoke magic, then get off your ass and invoke the magic.

It is a supernatural event. Again, if it is a supernatural event then it involves the supernatural by definition. How the supernatural event is produced is necessarily through supernatural interaction.

But it isn't called a shell. It's called a flood:
Genesis 7:17: And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

If you're going to abandon the text, then get off your ass and say so.

Isn't this after the 15 cubits bit? So now the waters get deeper and lift the ark? I see no problem yet.

Are you not paying attention to the conversation here? The ones saying that there was a "vapor canopy" that condensed and caused the earth to be flooded? The ones claiming that the molecularly entrapped water in the mantle somehow made it to the surface?

That is the smell of attempts to make the flood a natural process. Driven by god, to be sure, but still a natural process.

Actually those are attempts to explain where the water was before, not how it behaved during the flood. Many creationists believe that the earth was quite different before the flood, and this is just part of that belief. Look at what Buz says.

God did not wave his hand and create water. Instead, water that already existed was dumped upon the earth.

Exactly. He did not create water in parting the red sea either, just relocated it.

Then why do we have Buzsaw saying in Message 93:
Some of the present ocean water would have been either sub terrain or as vapor as per the Biblical model.

Why is he trying to justify a mechanism if it isn't important? You claim to be playing devil's advocate, but let's not play dumb.

That is still pre-flood location, not how the water was made to flood the land. His explanation of how the water was made to flood the land was that the earth pre-flood was topologically smoother.

Remember, the ark lands on Mt. Ararat. To do that, it has to be above as the waters "abated." But if there were a magical shell of water, then there's no way the Ark could get there since it was made below that level.

Ever tried to do that? Ever looked at where flotsam ends up after a flood? (and no, we're not talking tidal waves or hurricanes pushing boats inland, we're talking about (magically) settling on a high point)

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarty boam


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2008 1:32 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 12-24-2008 8:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2008 2:26 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 122 of 445 (492870)
01-03-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Architect-426
01-03-2009 11:40 AM


Re: The ocean crust - it's a great big bust! (or not keeping abreast of reality)
Hello ARCHITECT-426

You’re missing my whole point here. Weather the ocean crust is 100, 200 or 300+ million years old is not the issue I am revealing. The ‘fact’ is that there is a 3+ billion year difference in age of the ocean crust vs. the continents.

Not true. The difference between the oldest known land and the ocean floor is on that order of magnitude, but lots of land masses are younger, some much younger.

Appalachian Mountains

quote:
The Appalachians are old. A look at rocks exposed in today's Appalachian mountains reveals elongate belts of folded and thrust faulted marine sedimentary rocks, volcanic rocks and slivers of ancient ocean floor. Strong evidence that these rocks were deformed during plate collision. The birth of the Appalachian ranges, some 480 million years ago, marks the first of several mountain building plate collisions that culminated in the construction of the supercontinent Pangea with the Appalachians near the center.

They mean old by comparison to other land. Note that these mountains are so old that they have significant erosion from their original heights, yet they are less than half a billion years old.

Note that the core rocks are volcanic, but that they pre-date when the sedimentary layers were deposited while the area was an ocean floor:

quote:
The rocks at the core of the Appalachian Mountains formed more than a billion years ago. At that time,all of the continents were joined together in a single supercontinent surrounded by a single ocean. About 750 million years ago, the crust of the supercontinent began to thin and pull apart. As the crust expanded, a deep basin -- the Ocoee -- formed in what is now the western Carolinas, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia. Seawater filled the basin.

Sediments formed by the weathering of surrounding hills were transported by water and deposited in layers on the floor of the basin. Over a long period of time, a great thickness of sediments accumulated. These sediments now form the bedrock of the Great Smoky Mountains. Within these sediments, minerals like pyrite and metals like copper were deposited.

Then, about 540 million years ago, the supercontinent split into pieces that drifted away from each other. Seawater spread into low areas between crustal plates and,in time, formed new oceans. A shallow sea covered most of what is now the United States.

About 470 million years ago, the motion of the crustal plates changed, and the continents began to move toward each other. Eventually, about 270 million years ago, the continents ancestral to North America and Africa collided. Huge masses of rock were pushed west-ward along the margin of North America and piled up to form the mountains that we know as the Appalachians.


And this isn't the youngest land known.

There is? Interesting, it looks like a great big ditch to me! Where is all of the sediment buildup? There would be literally piles of….hundreds of miles high again if you stacked it vertically over these ‘millions’ of years.

Curiously the buildup from this subduction is easy to see - the Andes mountains are pushed up (a) by the collision with the sea floor, piling up the sedimentary land on that side, and (b) by the uplift caused by melted sediment piling up under them, some of it coming back out as volcanic lava.

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/rxmin/rock3.html

quote:
Metamorphic rocks started out as some other type of rock, but have been substantially changed from their original igneous, sedimentary, or earlier metamorphic form. Metamorphic rocks form when rocks are subjected to high heat, high pressure, hot, mineral-rich fluids or, more commonly, some combination of these factors. Conditions like these are found deep within the Earth or where tectonic plates meet.
(color for empHAsis).

And we can look at the age of these mountains too. From Andes Mountain Range - Information:

quote:
The Los Andes Mountains Range is relatively new. In a planet which age is calculated in approximately 4,700 million years, the process of Andean Orogenesis started less than 100 million years ago. It had its stage of major development between 40 and 20 million years in the past and it still continues in the present.
(color again for emPHASis).

That's between 0.04 and 0.02 billion years old. And there is land that is younger still. In fact the real evidence is the wide variation in the age of land in different places on every continent, a range that is over 4 billion years from youngest to oldest.

Land goes UP and land comes DOWN. Simple. And yes there is some horizontal shifting at major faults…..but no drifting, and the ocean crust does not get sucked up like a big giant Slurpee.

Curiously, nature is completely unencumbered by your opinion/s, if not oblivious to all of your thoughts, and it will continue to behave the way it does, unperturbed by your thoughts.

Instead, what this denial accomplishes is your absolute incapability to explain the sedimentary layers, hundreds of feet thick, at the tops of mountains. With your denial of plate tectonics you have lost any mechanism to lift these layers to their current heights.

Furthermore, where are all of the MOM’s for the Pacific? (Oh, there’s a little strand of them west of southern Chile)……almost 1/3rd of the face of the planet (ie the Great Pacific Blue) is a great big giant orphan!!!

Strangely, this amusing incredulity is due is your misunderstanding of the facts. The term "mid-ocean" does not mean the ridge has to be in the geometric middle. In fact part of the ridge forms the Sea of Cortez, where the Baja peninsula is gradually moving away from the main part of Mexico and California.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge

quote:
The mid-ocean ridges of the world are connected and form a single global mid-oceanic ridge system that is part of every ocean, making the mid-oceanic ridge system the longest mountain range in the world. The continuous mountain range is 65,000 km (40,400 mi) long and the total length of the system is 80,000 km (49,700 mi)[1].

Click to enlarge

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Pacific_Rise

quote:
The East Pacific Rise is a mid-oceanic ridge, a divergent tectonic plate boundary located along the floor of the Pacific Ocean. It separates the Pacific Plate to the west from (north to south) the North American Plate, the Rivera Plate, the Cocos Plate, the Nazca Plate, and the Antarctic Plate. It runs from an undefined point near Antarctica in the south northward to its termination at the northern end of the Gulf of California in the Salton Sea basin in southern California.

So it doesn't even have to be in the ocean to be classified as a "mid-ocean ridge" ... it just needs to be a place where the plates are (and have been actually measured to be) moving apart.

The same thing is happening in Africa at the Great Rift Valley visible on the map above, between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.

Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny

quote:
Orogeny (Greek for "mountain generating") is the process of natural mountain building, and may be studied as a tectonic structural event, as a geographical event and a chronological event, in that orogenic events cause distinctive structural phenomena and related tectonic activity, affect certain regions of rocks and crust and happen within a time frame.

Click to enlarge

The physical manifestations of orogenesis (the process of orogeny) are orogenic belts or orogens. An orogen is different from a mountain range in that an orogen may be almost completely eroded away, and only recognizable by studying (old) rocks that bear the traces of the orogeny. Orogens are usually long, thin, arcuate tracts of rocks which have a pronounced linear structure resulting in terranes or blocks of deformed rocks, separated generally by dipping thrust faults.

Note the age bands on the ocean floors, bands that cannot be explained with your "shifting back and forth" concept. Note that you can see both the mid-ocean ridges and the subduction and mountain building zones on this map. These different geological zones have different traits that identify them.

Challenge:
If you guys are going to prove the play tectonic theory to a fussy, cranky old Architect, then please provide the following:
...
I will look forward to seeing some real scientific proof. If I am not convinced, ...

Strangely, whether you are convinced or not has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the science, it only relates to your personal denial of the evidence, evidence, btw, that has already been submitted in this thread.

Interestingly, in my design office we evaluate the ability of subcontractors to accomplish tasks as part of our oversight of some government contracts. Based on your posts here, I would rate you "Unqualified: lacks the necessary expertise to accomplish the task" ... We don't make a special stamp for this, we write a letter documenting it. You can stamp on it all you want to, but it won't change the facts.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : more

Edited by RAZD, : added orogens


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Architect-426, posted 01-03-2009 11:40 AM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Architect-426, posted 01-17-2009 11:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 445 (494757)
01-18-2009 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Coyote
01-17-2009 11:33 PM


a little bit off?
Hey Coyote,

You are off by a little bit ...

.. in just about everything and more ways than one. It is humorous to see him cherry pick dates from different areas, and different processes and then claim that they should be the same according to plate tectonics.

You can't just go mixing events vastly separated in time just because you think they might relate to a global flood.

Nor claim that it is caused by volcanic activity that would have to be evident every 10 sq miles to generate 1/10 of the energy etc of his theory -- all at the same time.

You should be ashamed to post such unscientific and anti-scientific nonsense in the Science Forum. The only folks who believe that stuff are diehard creation "scientists" ...

I think he's on the fringe even for them. Like Ron Wyatt.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2009 11:33 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 189 of 445 (542349)
01-09-2010 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by edge
01-08-2010 10:17 PM


Re: Ballistic Sedimentation - A Geological Epiphany
Hi edge, amusing yourself?

Are you serious? Fossils are being deposited in an erosional envrionment? Not counting the fact that you just obliterated all life in a monumental explosion ...

Strewn by the magical mystery explosion/s, uncovered by the erosional environment.

Unfortunately, for ARCHITECT-426, this does not explain fossil sorting in the slightest, as seen in foraminifera sorted in layers by species groupings:

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/whatsnew/papers/biochart.pdf

Nor does it explain the smooth transitions from one level to the next and the overall hierarchy of descent:

http://web.archive.org/...57/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html

quote:
The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.

There is no reason - or mechanism- for such structure to be preserved in the fossil record under the grande exploding world scenario.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : spling


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by edge, posted 01-08-2010 10:17 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Coragyps, posted 01-09-2010 11:53 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 191 by edge, posted 01-09-2010 3:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 192 of 445 (542402)
01-09-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by edge
01-09-2010 3:35 PM


Re: Ballistic Sedimentation - A Geological Impossibility
Hi again edge,

More like abusing myself, I'm afraid. These YEC posts recently have been so nonsensical that I find it completely disorienting. I have no idea what to make of them.

Curiously, I don't think that's fair to other YEC's or creationists in general, as Achitect-426 is pretty much on his own here - I know of no other creationists that has taken this ... approach.

But for me, it's just plain crazy to think that the deposits could all originate from an explosion. These things are common in volcanic rocks, but not anything like the scale that Arch seems to think. However, they would tell us what to expect from such a cataclysmic explosion. And it ain't there.

I don't think you are alone here, I pretty much wrote him off when he told me that shells could survive being submersed in magma. I've also figured that this would take the effect of Krakatoa and place a similar event every 10 sq miles over the surface of the entire earth, at a minimum - and krakatoa did not throw any sediment or fossils, just ash and cinder blocks.

Krakatoa is the largest volcanic explosion known in history, and the largest ones known from geological evidence are still too small and still only show ash covering existing turf - no sediment or fossils mixed in.

Nor do we see sediment or fossils mixed with ash in any known volcanic deposits, rather what is embedded in the ash is what was already on the ground (Pompeii for example).

I consider this grande exploding world scenario a falsified hypothesis.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by edge, posted 01-09-2010 3:35 PM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by edge, posted 01-09-2010 8:24 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 194 by edge, posted 01-09-2010 8:42 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 196 by Architect-426, posted 04-11-2010 11:34 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15828
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 195 of 445 (542411)
01-09-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by edge
01-09-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Ballistic Sedimentation - A Geological Impossibility
Hi edge,

Here, try the list on Wiki. Krakatau in 1883 had a VEI of 6 and Tambora in 1815 was a 7.

And I see Mt St Helens was a 5 - the shock of that exposion was felt in Victoria BC by some friends of mine (it happened before we lived there, so I missed it). I also see that the "supervolcano" Yellowstone Caldera is listed twice as an 8. I remember reading about ash deposits in the midwest that are attributed to this source being several meters deep.

I also see Toba was an 8:

quote:
In addition, it is the site of a supervolcanic eruption that occurred about 74,000 years ago,[2] a massive climate-changing event. The eruption is believed to have had a VEI intensity of 8. This eruption is believed to have been the largest anywhere on Earth in the last 25 million years. According to the Toba catastrophe theory to which some anthropologists and archeologists subscribe, it had global consequences, killing most humans then alive and creating a population bottleneck in Central Eastern Africa and India that affected the genetic inheritance of all humans today.[3]

Still no evidence of sediment or fossil throwing, nor is this a global explosion.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by edge, posted 01-09-2010 8:42 PM edge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014