|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
1. I believe Mt Everest was formed by a collision of two plates, imo caused by flood induced tectonic activity. So the evidence of the seashells on top of Mt Everest are due to tectonic activity.
Message 100What effect would trillions of tons of additional water have upon the surface of a planet having relatively smoother surface than is observed today with depression areas of thin earth crust and areas of thick earth crust? Imo, it would cause immense tectonic activity, moving large and small plates so as to create such mountains as Everest. Why do you think not? For one, because water is lighter than rock sand gravel dirt etc etc etc. and two because the depth of water in the oceans does not cause tectonic activity. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3623 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
I'd like to know why anyone thinks a steady driving rain over the entire face of the globe--one that raises sea levels nine feet every hour over a period of forty days--would have the effect of raising mountains.
That's hydraulic drilling. The mountains would erode. The creo Flood model is exactly backwards. The 'antediluvian world' would exhibit higher peaks and deeper valleys. You would see a more level surface in the aftermath of the event, with material scoured from the mountains now shifted to the basins. And that eroded material would definitely include any seashells that had made it up that far. Water doesn't push continents around. It doesn't raise mountains. But it does erode them. That is a fact. We just do not see what we should see if anything like this Flood ever happened. _____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 176 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Seashells on mountaintops,
fossils in rock outcrops, front appendages evolving to wings, these are a few of my favorite things. When Behe blabs,when Demski lies, when I'm feeling sad, I just remember a few of my favorite things and I don't feel so bad. Please feel free to add your own favorite things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
1. Until some qualified flood geologists come on board for you science educated folks to debate, about all I can offer is my own opinions ... You might as well say: "Until a qualified creationist mathematician comes on board and says that 2 + 2 = 5, I will go on offering my own opinion that 2 + 2 = 5." You assert that you will go on reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" in rubbishism comes along and agrees with your rubbish. Now, here's a thought. Perhaps you could stop reciting rubbish until someone "qualified" does agree with you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 309 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Jar, as I thought I made clear, you're not debating a scientist or geologist. You're debating logic and reason. So, you are attempting to apply what you call "logic and reason" to subjects of which you know sweet-bugger-all. How did you suppose that that was going to turn out, really? Even applying real logic and reason to those subjects wouldn't help you if you tried to apply them to subjects of which you know nothing. If you have any interest in what the word "logic" means, then I used to teach basic logic at the University of Leicester and would be happy to help you out. If, on the other hand, you wish to continue to apply the word "logic" to creationist gibble-gabble rather than to actual logic --- then I guess you're a creationist. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: No effect. Plates move on seas of magma underneath them and friction between plates. They do not move because of material on top of them. There are already trillions of tons of water on the planet that do not effect plate movement. On that logic, if top weight effected plate movement, the rockies and other mountain ranges should effect plate movement and not be the cause of plate movement. Your argument doesn't make any sense. Hence why your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
quote: Because that's not how plates move. You are implying that a force that is seen no where on the planet can move material below it and force it up. That has to defy at least several laws of physics. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Imo, it would cause immense tectonic activity, moving large and small plates so as to create such mountains as Everest. Why do you think not?
How would a vertical force, the weight of the water, cause things to move horizontaly? Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Especially when the material below it is uniform. If the material wasn't uniform below it, the vertical force could move it diagonally and horizontally. However, there's no indication that magma under the plates isn't uniform.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
However, there's no indication that magma under the plates isn't uniform.
That wont stop Buz from making shit up though. Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
He's a YEC creationist. What did you expect?
Honesty? Not in their vocabulary. well, at least he didn't cite Bumgarder's idea, the one he admitted needs a miracle...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Obvious Child writes: Honesty? Not in their vocabulary. Careful Obvious Child that sounds just a bit like Ray Martinez (aka Cold Fusion Object). Most of the YECers i know are honest enough it is just that they have too much investment in their theology and personal lives to really consider different and better explanations that would instigate a revolution in their heads. I believe it is more of being blind (willfully perhaps) then being dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Does it bother them that they are living a lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5940 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Until some qualified flood geologists come on board for you science educated folks to debate That is a problem. Qualified flood geologist are rare for the very good reason that the flood is not supported by the evidence. I have not heard of too many agnostic (or non-yec Christian) geologist who after having working with the data for a number of years finally conclude that "hey you know a single world wide flood really explains all this complexity so much better" When considering alternate possible explanations for some set of data one would assess a theory or explanation based on its explanatory power, explanatory scope, predictive power, plausibility, existence of data that would falsify, etc. The flood does not fair well in any of these categories compared to modern geology. But that is a topic of its own.
Buzsaw writes: I'm giving you my best shots from what I have to work with so far as I'm learning as I go. Sure that is true for all of us.
Buzsaw writes: I am not YEC. I do not take the genesis 1 opening introductory statement as being part of day one But we are not talking about Genesis 1 here. We are talking about the flood and how floodist might explain seashell's within the upper strata of mountain. As a side note if you have already moved from the literal reading of Genesis 1 why not move from literal reading of the flood since the data is in opposition to it?
Buzsaw writes: In days one and two we read that light was introduced and that enough water was evaporated from the earth to create the atmosphere/heavens. Imo this light came from the Holy Spirit of God moving upon the waters (as the text says) who was capable of producing the very intense amount of heat that it would take to do all of that evaporating in a relative short but undetermined period of time. Perhaps this is when some of the lithificated rock was formed. This of course would also be a dewatering/dehydration event regarding your argument for that requirement. We are talking about seashells/marine fossils within lithified rock! The YEC explanation is that these seashell formations are flood deposits and were uplifted during or soon after the flood. I am just pointing out that to uplift these deposits, which form the peaks of some mountains, they would have to lithified first. Lithification takes time and pressure so this add yet another step to the formations we see today. Consider Mount Everest. The very top is lithified marine sediments. So for these to be flood deposits you would had to have at least these steps: 1. Deposition of marine deposits. Many of these deposits include bioturbation or signs of living marine animals stirring things up and burrowing. This voids a violent deposition. Not to mention most are classified as "low energy" depositions meaning there are not signs of stream flow like you see in floods. 2. Burial of marine deposits miles deep. 3. Dewatering of sediments. 4. Void reduction, cementation, recystalization. 5. Uplift at a dizzying rate - miles in fact. Consider the magnitude and frequency of earthquakes required for this to occur even over a few thousand years. Consider the tsunami's that would have been recorded from this event. Consider the heat generated at faults from the frictional forces. Consider the fact that the Himalayas foothills consist of the gravels, conglomerates and eroded parts of the lithified mountains and even containing fossils all of which attest to long periods of existence. And you can't use the flood to explain those secondary deposits as the flood excuse was already used up to explain the formations of the original sediments. 6. Erosion of the upper layers that were required to lithify the peaks we see today. If you are considering the Canadian Rocky Mountains you have to tack on the occurance of an iceage to account what we see: 7. Ice build up from year to year to thousands of feet high. 8. Scouring and geomorphing actions of these glaciers 9. Melting of these Glaciers. Now package all that up into a few thousand years and ask yourself - is it credible? Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Iceage writes: Most of the YECers i know are honest enough it is just that they have too much investment in their theology and personal lives to really consider different and better explanations that would instigate a revolution in their heads. I believe it is more of being blind (willfully perhaps) then being dishonest. Thanks for being civil, Iceage. It's not about investment for me at all. It's the corroborating evidence that keeps me believing the Biblical flood record; things like the Nuweiba Exodus evidence, the fulfilled prophecies and the like. Not only that but there's evidence of some version of flood due to evidence like Ballard's Black Sea discovery and I still go with a revised version of Wyatt & Fassold's Noah's ark site. I've seen Fassold's video on TV and Wyatt's stuff on slides etc. I'm convinced in my own mind that the flood happened. It's the science of it all that I'm attempting to figure out. I understand that there's seven large ones and a number of smaller tectonic plates on the planet's surface, the smaller ones having broken off of the larger ones due to the tectonic activity. Resting on these are the thin ocean crusts, an average of around 2 1/2 miles thick and the continental crusts, an average of 20 miles thick. I see on one site that water has a whole lot to do with forming the continents. I see also on a tectonic globe that the larger longer fractures in the large plates tend to be more or less down through the middle of the larger oceans. I can't get up a direct link to a book page pertaining to the importance of water but you can go to: http://www.books.google.com/books?isbn=0412530503... and click on "Oceanic Crust" where you click "page 25." I would appreciate any comments you may be willing to offer regarding this information as to how much more a global flood quantity of water would factor in relative to this information. According to the Biblical record, the topography of the planet's surface was much different than we observe having a much larger amount of subterranian water than at present, these subterranian lakes having been broken up via the flood according to the record. If this were the case, I don't see how anyone can be so sure about how much this could have had in the forming of the mountain ranges and continents as we observe today. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
One of the reasons that religious arguments are discouraged in the science threads is because they often represent a single answer that can be applied to any question. Whenever someone exhibits a preference for this type of answer we usually try to encourage them to take it to a thread devoted to discussing it.
There's no problem with beginning a rebuttal with something like, "According to the Biblical record," as long as it is followed at some point by the evidence supporting the accuracy of the Biblical account. If no evidence is offered then there is nothing to rebut but the Bible, and the science threads are for scientific discussions, not religious ones.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024