Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 12:30 PM
41 online now:
dwise1, edge, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,197 Year: 5,234/19,786 Month: 1,356/873 Week: 252/460 Day: 4/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Creationist Baumgardner: one of the top mainstream mantle/plate tectonics simulators!
Randy
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 106 of 114 (16092)
08-27-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 10:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ That data of yours looks very consistent with a global flood. The deeper we first see them in the flood rocks the less likely they are to be alive today.

Sorry but weren't they all supposed to be represented by either 2 or 7 of each kind on the ark? All others were killed in the flood. They all came off the ark together so the data are not at all consistent with the ark myth. It seems to me that you are tying yourself in knots trying to defend the indefensible.

Randy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 10:13 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 3:58 AM Randy has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 114 (16098)
08-27-2002 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Randy
08-27-2002 12:15 AM


^ Whoops. I'm only talking marine organisms! The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.

You're very much correct! Of course our model would not predict what I said it would for mammals. For mammals our model would simply predict a starting and ending point due to biogeography/sorting/mobility etc. Sorry & thanks. From now on I'll post when I've got more time.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Randy, posted 08-27-2002 12:15 AM Randy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by John, posted 08-27-2002 5:53 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 109 by Joe Meert, posted 08-27-2002 7:13 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 114 (16101)
08-27-2002 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tranquility Base
08-27-2002 3:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.

No dice, TB. No model you've proposed allows the survival of anything. Just destruction of habitat on the scale of a flood would kill pretty much all marine animals.

Pockets of unmixed salt-water perhaps? And other pockets of fresh-water?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[This message has been edited by John, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 3:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:29 PM John has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3790 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 109 of 114 (16103)
08-27-2002 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Tranquility Base
08-27-2002 3:58 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Whoops. I'm only talking marine organisms! The Biblical model allows marine creatures to survive the deluge.

You're very much correct! Of course our model would not predict what I said it would for mammals. For mammals our model would simply predict a starting and ending point due to biogeography/sorting/mobility etc. Sorry & thanks. From now on I'll post when I've got more time.

[/QUOTE]

JM: Let's not forget the topic of this thread. According to the model you support all life is steamed to death during the flood and the oceans that eventually come back are no deeper than 15 meters.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 3:58 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

    
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1328 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 110 of 114 (16104)
08-27-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Tranquility Base
08-26-2002 11:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I just read an article on T-Rex and it stated that juveniles do get mistaken for alternative species especially if separated stratigraphically.

I assume that you are refering to Nanotyrannus and "Jane" the new find and whether or not Jane was a Nano or a juvenile. Anyway, regardless of the classification, Jane lived in the late Cretateous just like Sue (the big Tyrannosuarus currently residing in Chicago)did. In other words, no separation w.r.t. time of life there.

quote:
If anyone wants to further discuss flood ordering I suggest you start a thread on that elsewhere.

I think that is probably a good idea, I was responding to a statement of yours and appear to have taken us further off track, my bad . However, this does bring up an interesting and thread relevant idea. If run-away subduction occured why do we have any marine fossils at all from the "earliest" stages of the flood (or earliest times of evolution)? Wouldn't many or most of them have been "melted" in the interior of the earth? I do not remember seeing anything addressing this in Baurmgardners paper. While I understand that much of the old seabed is not accessible, I know that we do have some marine fossiles (ie Burgess Shale, marine dinos, ect). How come they were laid down and preserved and not turned into molten rock. This question actually is for either side for people with more knowledge of geology than I have, is this a valid question ?

------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-26-2002 11:18 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by edge, posted 08-27-2002 5:02 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

    
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 111 of 114 (16123)
08-27-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
08-27-2002 8:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
However, this does bring up an interesting and thread relevant idea. If run-away subduction occured why do we have any marine fossils at all from the "earliest" stages of the flood (or earliest times of evolution)? Wouldn't many or most of them have been "melted" in the interior of the earth? I do not remember seeing anything addressing this in Baurmgardners paper. While I understand that much of the old seabed is not accessible, I know that we do have some marine fossiles (ie Burgess Shale, marine dinos, ect). How come they were laid down and preserved and not turned into molten rock. This question actually is for either side for people with more knowledge of geology than I have, is this a valid question ?

I'm sure that there is a way around this for the creationists using a few known facts dressed up in a cloth of vivid imagination. Probably the deeper/earlier sediments were suddenly uplifted before they could be cooked. I mean, hey, there are brachiopods found on Mt. Everest, aren't there? Now, run with that!

But you are correct. If the model under discussion were valid there would be a much higher percentage of metamorphic rocks than what we see today. One thing we know is that regions of high heat flow are usually underlain by nascent batholiths. Any sedimentary rocks at depths greater than a few kilometers would be thoroughly cooked. The presence of low temp/hi pressure metamorphic terranes argues against this. But never mind ... these are just details. Hunches seem to carry greater weight with our creationist crowd. Got any?

[/B][/QUOTE]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 08-27-2002 8:37 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 114 (16128)
08-27-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by John
08-27-2002 5:53 AM


John

Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by John, posted 08-27-2002 5:53 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by John, posted 08-27-2002 11:39 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 114 by edge, posted 08-27-2002 11:40 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 114 (16134)
08-27-2002 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tranquility Base
08-27-2002 9:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John

Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.


Is there another theory besides runaway subduction? You've defended it or components of it from time to time. Are you abandoning it now?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:29 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
edge
Member
Posts: 4521
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 114 of 114 (16135)
08-27-2002 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tranquility Base
08-27-2002 9:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Don't confuse 'the' Biblical model with the musings and models of Baumgardner et al. No one is claiming runaay subduction as absolute truth.

However, some do confuse Baumgardner's model with a viable theory. So, is it still your 'hunch' that these 'musings' are actually better at explaining the earth than mainstream science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:29 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019