Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
44 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Happy Birthday: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,453 Year: 18,489/19,786 Month: 909/1,705 Week: 161/518 Day: 35/52 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 166 of 372 (418683)
08-29-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:16 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Sorry, but it can't be erosion because the sedimentary layers are IN THE MIDDLE of the rock layers.

If erosion did not cause the sedimentary layers you speak of, then what did? Weathering and erosion are the two 'causes' for sedimentary rock. Even the flood model suggests that erosion is the cause for the sedimentary layers.

Now that you have brought up the existance of sediment layers within other rock layers perhaps you could explain how this fits with the global flood model.

If it was erosion then the top parts of the rock layers would have eroded away.

And they have, hence the layers of sediments! You appear to be thinking of geology in a limited timescale. Remember that the model of onetime events is your model and not scientists.

So that's another example of scientists not thinking things through well enough because of their eagerness to deny the bible.

Are you sure you have thought this through before you became so eager to deny geology?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Vacate has responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18870
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 167 of 372 (418684)
08-29-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:16 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Sorry, but it can't be erosion because the sedimentary layers are IN THE MIDDLE of the rock layers.

You've misunderstood the explanation, but let me start by clarifying that the sedimentary layers *are* the rock layers. For example, look at this photograph of the sedimentary layers of the grand canyon:

Each of the horizontal layers are sedimentary layers, and they are rock. Sediments once deposited can become deeply buried, and the resulting great pressure and accompanying heat turn them into rock.

The material that forms the sedimentary layers comes from erosion of areas at higher elevations. The eroded material is carried to lower elevations by wind and by streams and rivers. In general, upland regions are areas of net erosion, while low lying areas as well as seas and lakes and so forth are areas of net deposition of the sediments eroded from upland areas.

And that's why no scientists believe that a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt could be responsible for the world's sedimentary layers. Such singular events could not explain the many, many different sedimentary layers, each reflecting a different environment as well as different flora and fauna, and also dating progressively younger radiometrically the higher the layer in the geologic column.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6802
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 168 of 372 (418685)
08-29-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:16 PM


*sniff sniff* -- ew!
So that's another example of scientists not thinking things through well enough because of their eagerness to deny the bible.

I smell a troll. Does anyone else smell it?


I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by anglagard, posted 08-29-2007 9:20 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 171 by iceage, posted 08-29-2007 9:46 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 177 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2007 12:24 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 169 of 372 (418692)
08-29-2007 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 7:16 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Refpunk writes:

Sorry, but it can't be erosion because the sedimentary layers are IN THE MIDDLE of the rock layers. If it was erosion then the top parts of the rock layers would have eroded away. So that's another example of scientists not thinking things through well enough because of their eagerness to deny the bible.

Refpunk, I think you should have a look at this thread, on which two geologists are going through the basics of their subject.

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1

I say this because it's all very well disagreeing with something, but you obviously need to know and understand what it is that you're disagreeing with in the first place, before arguing against it.

Don't you agree?

It would be no good me arguing against Biblical creation if I'd never read the account in the Bible, and had no idea what the claims of young earth creationists were, would it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 7:16 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 170 of 372 (418698)
08-29-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chiroptera
08-29-2007 8:32 PM


Re: *sniff sniff* -- ew!
Chiroptera writes:

I smell a troll. Does anyone else smell it?

I think rigor mortis set in several weeks ago, and the stench has been quite overwhelming ever since.

The statement "There were no Neanderthals" was the clincher.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 08-29-2007 8:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4198 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 171 of 372 (418702)
08-29-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chiroptera
08-29-2007 8:32 PM


Re: *sniff sniff* -- ew!
oh yeah. I started to respond a while back but I felt like I was defending a spherical earth to a flat earther. I suspect Refpunk is a troll because I refuse to believe that anyone is that .... oh .... um .... well I don't want to violate the forum rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 08-29-2007 8:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 172 of 372 (418711)
08-29-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Vacate
08-29-2007 8:26 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Sorry, but ALL SEDIMENT COMES FROM WATER BECAUSE the definition of sediment is: "matter that settles to the bottom of liquid". And the only way sediment could have gotten into the MIDDLE of rock layers is if the rock was once covered in water. So you're incorrect.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Vacate, posted 08-29-2007 8:26 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:13 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 174 by Vacate, posted 08-29-2007 11:27 PM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 175 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-29-2007 11:31 PM Refpunk has responded
 Message 176 by iceage, posted 08-29-2007 11:31 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31462
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 173 of 372 (418714)
08-29-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 11:01 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the Great Wetting that Never Happened.

Would you be interested in walking through some real life examples and explaining how the "Flood model" might explain them?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-30-2007 7:03 AM jar has not yet responded

Vacate
Member (Idle past 2884 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 174 of 372 (418717)
08-29-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 11:01 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
the definition of sediment is: "matter that settles to the bottom of liquid"

True enough for the basic definition of sediment, but not for the definition of sedimentary layers. As you can see on wikipedia weathering does also contribute to 'sedimentary' rock. Just look at the weathering effects you see from sand eroding desert rock.

This is besides the point however.

And the only way sediment could have gotten into the MIDDLE of rock layers is if the rock was once covered in water.

I would ask you to propose some method that would deposit sediments from any source underneath an existing rock layer. We are obviously not talking about sediments collecting in a cave somewhere. This is global, so tell me how sediments collected globally under existing rock.

So you're incorrect.

Thats been know to happen, so show me how.

Don't forget your original claim that erosion did not cause the sediments to be deposited underneath the rocks. An explanation on how you see a flood first creating all the sediments and then depositing them underneath rock layers would be helpfull in correcting my misunderstandings.

Edited by Vacate, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3763
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 175 of 372 (418719)
08-29-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 11:01 PM


Definition of "sediment"
...the definition of sediment is: "matter that settles to the bottom of liquid".

Let's see you document that definition. How about a link and quote from an on-line dictionary?

If you substituted "fluid" for "liquid" you'd be pretty much right. Fluids include such things as liquids AND gases.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sediment

There, they also sort of include glacial ice as being a "fluid". While that may be stretching things a bit, Glacial ice does essentially behave as a very viscus fluid.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Refpunk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 9:33 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4198 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 176 of 372 (418720)
08-29-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Refpunk
08-29-2007 11:01 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
quote:

sed·i·ment (sĕd'ə-mənt) pronunciation
n.

1. Material that settles to the bottom of a liquid;
2. Solid fragments of inorganic or organic material that come from the weathering of rock and are carried and deposited by wind, water, or ice.


Since you went thru all the trouble of looking up the definition of sediment why didn't you read whole thing - wind, water or ice.

And just what the heck is the "Middle of rock layers".

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Refpunk, posted 08-29-2007 11:01 PM Refpunk has not yet responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3896
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 177 of 372 (418736)
08-30-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Chiroptera
08-29-2007 8:32 PM


Troll talk
1) If you wish to make input of this sort, you should have gone to the "General discussion..." topic (link in my "signature"), and supplied a link back to the message(s) in this topic. Here the comment is getting buried somewhere it shouldn't have been in the first place.

2) Others should not have been replying to your message.

SEE THE ADMIN QUOTE IN MY SIGNATURE!

And do NOT reply to this message in this topic. Anyone doing such will get at least a 24 hour suspension. If you need to reply, go to the "General discussion..." topic, link below.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 08-29-2007 8:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1881 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 178 of 372 (418757)
08-30-2007 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
08-29-2007 11:13 PM


Re: 'Out of Bedrock' theory
jar:

Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the Great Wetting that Never Happened.

Would you be interested in walking through some real life examples and explaining how the "Flood model" might explain them?

YECs seem to think every rock on earth is either mudstone or pillow lava.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 08-29-2007 11:13 PM jar has not yet responded

Refpunk
Member (Idle past 4336 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 179 of 372 (418944)
08-31-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Minnemooseus
08-29-2007 11:31 PM


Re: Definition of "sediment"
"The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus" is where I found the definition of sediment. So now you'll have to try to deiscredit that dictionary as well as the historical accounts of the hundreds of ancient cultures of a global flood all for the made-up stories of today's scientists. So it appears that atheists are in the habit of denying and making up their own history rather than confirming it in order to deny God. But since the truth never contradicts itself, then atheists paint themselves into a corner, as usual.

Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-29-2007 11:31 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 08-31-2007 9:50 AM Refpunk has not yet responded
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 08-31-2007 10:06 AM Refpunk has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31462
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 180 of 372 (418948)
08-31-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Refpunk
08-31-2007 9:33 AM


Now you dun it Willis.
So it appears that atheists are in the habit of denying and making up their own history rather than confirming it in order to deny God. But since the truth never contradicts itself, then atheists paint themselves into a corner, as usual.

The first time you made such an assertion it was assumed that you were simply ignorant of the fact that Christians know there was never a Flood and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of the life we see.

The second time you made a similar false assertion it was just assumed you are a slow learner.

But now you bring it up yet again.

The fact that there was never a Flood has nothing to do with denying God or Christianity.

If you honestly think there was a Flood, I have offered to walk through what is seen and let you show how some Flood model can explain it. The conventional model does just that, it explains what is seen. If you expect anyone to see the Flood model as anything other than a joke, it will be necessary for the Flood model to explain what exists as well or better than the Conventional model.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Refpunk, posted 08-31-2007 9:33 AM Refpunk has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019