|
Author
|
Topic: How to make sand.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 121 (428823)
10-17-2007 6:09 PM
|
|
|
The current model for making sand is pretty simple. Start with a mountain, a big sucker of a rock. Then the daily transition between warm day time and colder night time, and between hotter summer and colder winter will cause expansion and contraction of the rock, gradually over long periods of time opening small cracks. Again over time, water will fill the cracks and when it freezes enlarge the cracks, eventually breaking off pieces. Again, over time the pieces are transported from higher elevations to lower ones by wind, water and gravity. During transportation they are broken up further, becoming smaller and smaller pieces. Nothing is needed other than processes we can see at work today and lots of time. So what is a Flood model for making sand? Edited by TrueChristian, : No reason given.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 16 of 121 (431044)
10-28-2007 10:34 PM
|
|
|
Bump to see if there is some other model.
Here is the opportunity for Biblical Christians or Creationists or Creation Scientists (if there were any) to step up and present a model that explains sand.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by Buzsaw, posted 12-11-2010 9:02 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: A tabletop model of sand formation.
Well, lets look and see if that is true? Would such a process work and produce what is seen today? Well, it just so happens that we can see similar situations and find out if it would work. Look at this image:
Here is a pile of boulders that has been pounded by water, not just for 40 days and nights, not just for hundreds of days and nights, but many thousands of days and nights. But let me get it straight. You are claiming that the flood during its 40 day duration and the few periods post 40 day when the waters are receding, created the sand? Is that correct? If so, we have a potential model to examine.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: A tabletop model of sand formation.
So before the flood and after the flood sand production was by the same normal methods included in the current models? Is that correct?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: A tabletop model of sand formation.
The flood accellerted the ensandification process a trillion fold. I'm sorry but that is a nonsense statement.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Jar is up to his usual tricks again.
I asked:
jar writes: But let me get it straight. You are claiming that the flood during its 40 day duration and the few periods post 40 day when the waters are receding, created the sand? Is that correct? However your response "Yep. That is god's own truth." did not include a direct quote of that material. I also notice that you later amended that statement to add that there is additional sand made by the conventional model before the alleged flood and after the flood waters receded and that the period before the flood was 1500 years. So is the model you are proposing: "Conventional sand creation as found in the current models interrupted by a 40 day rainfall followed by an approximately one year recessional event and then followed by additional sand creation by the conventional methods?"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Jar is up to his usual tricks again.
AnswersInGenitals writes: jar writes: So is the model you are proposing: "Conventional sand creation as found in the current models interrupted by a 40 day rainfall followed by an approximately one year recessional event and then followed by additional sand creation by the conventional methods?" Unable to deal with my clearly stated model for global flood sand creation, you are now resorting to a straw-man argument and trying to put words in my mouth (keyboard). I never mentioned a one year recession. Supply side economics will protect us from a recession of any length. But you are dragging us off topic. Sorry, but its time to feed the sheep. I'll check back a little later and see if you people have actually taken the trouble to read my posts and have come to your senses. The recessional event is the time for the flood waters to recede. So once again I ask if your model is:
"Conventional sand creation as found in the current models interrupted by a 40 day rainfall followed by an approximately one year recessional event and then followed by additional sand creation by the conventional methods?"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 33 of 121 (431196)
10-29-2007 8:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
10-29-2007 8:03 PM
|
|
Re: The Two Biblical Flood Accounts
I'm sorry but that is simply not a model, just babble. It can be accepted as a Special Pleading, but nothing more. Is that all that Creationists have to offer, Special Pleadings?
The advent of the Holy Spirit brought light (text implicating a very hot light, hot enough to evaporate enough water up to form the pre-Noaic atmosphere in preparation for the Edenic genesis.) I'm sorry, but does that even have any Biblical support so it could be considered a Special Pleading?
The possible long period of activity which kept the earth's surface soupy and the waters mixed perhaps formed much of the sand which may be unexplainable by the post Edenic flood. I'm sorry but is there even any Biblical support for that so it could be considered a Special Pleading?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-29-2007 8:03 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 1:32 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 36 of 121 (431318)
10-30-2007 1:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
10-30-2007 1:32 AM
|
|
Re: The Two Biblical Flood Accounts
I'm sorry Buz but you as usual failed to provide any references to which passages you were using. Without that we cannot even check anything you assert.
We all know that light produces heat and it takes heat for water to rise. Interpretation of scripture requires some logic and reason to get it right, you know, that stuff you falsely alleged that Biblical creationists do not apply in the debates. When you provided the exact verses you are using we will take a look. However, it is still nothing but a Special Pleading and also unrelated to the topic which is "How to make sand."
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 1:32 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 121 (431356)
10-30-2007 4:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
10-30-2007 3:16 PM
|
|
Still just a Special Pleading and off topic to boot.
A. Premordial soup/mud covers the earth. Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading.
B. water goes from earth up to the atmosphere having the effect of creating dry land at the higher levels and seas at the lower levels. Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading.
C. Light is applied to the dark soupy surface prior to the above, implying that the light source also produced enough heat to effect the evaporation. Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading.
D. An energy source, i.e. the Holy Spirit "moved" upon the waters to effect this according to the Biblical record, implying that according to the account the HS was the source of energy. Nothing but Special Pleading.
1. Other than the source of energy, what about the above is contrary to modern science laws, applications and observations etc. Well you are assuming facts not in evidence for one thing.
2. How can you alledge that the Genesis account states nothing applicable to modern science? Because you have offered nothing that is testable or even any sources for what you assert. You also fall back on Special Pleadings and creating evidence which simply does not exist. It also has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic Buz.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 10-30-2007 3:16 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 40 of 121 (431602)
11-01-2007 12:25 AM
|
|
|
Bump just incase a Creationist actually might have a model
I know it is very unlikely, but I thought I would bump this yet again to see if a Creationist had a model or if some Creationist dares to take a stand that the model laid out in Message 28 and others is the one they agree to. For those who cannot figure out how to follow links, here is the model present so far but not agreed to by the person presenting it.
So is the model you are proposing: "Conventional sand creation as found in the current models interrupted by a 40 day rainfall followed by an approximately one year recessional event and then followed by additional sand creation by the conventional methods?"
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 41 of 121 (431722)
11-01-2007 6:08 PM
|
|
|
I've heard that there is Creation Science
How come it never shows up when it has an opportunity to prove its existence?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 45 of 121 (431737)
11-01-2007 7:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
11-01-2007 7:05 PM
|
|
The TOPIC Buz, is "How to make sand."
If you recap you see that my logic on the making of the sand was that the premordial mix of water and soil, i.e. mud was indicative of something to cause the mix to remain as mud rather than for the soil to settle beneath the water for an undeterminate period of time before light appeared. That is not a model, it is just another Special Pleading. The question is, "How to make sand."
Whether this was seismic or weather conditions would be unknown but the implication was that there was ongoing mixing of the soup which would perhaps be indicative of producing sand. I'm sorry, that is not even a Special Pleading, just nonsense.
Not only that, but according to Genesis chapter one, the stars (likely those relative to earth, i.e the Milky Way) did not appear until day 4. I'm sorry, but that is also totally irrelevant. The question is Buz, "How to make sand." Do you have ANYTHING to contribute towards that topic?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 11-01-2007 7:05 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 46 of 121 (431740)
11-01-2007 8:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
11-01-2007 7:18 PM
|
|
It would be nice if Creation Science actually existed.
Well, the question actually is "How to make sand." If you have a model other than the Special Pleadings and nonsense, here is the place to present it. Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 11-01-2007 7:18 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 8:36 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 51 of 121 (431822)
11-02-2007 9:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 8:36 AM
|
|
Re: It would be nice if Creation Science actually existed.
Where is your model? Message 1 You have nothing more verifiable than I so far as I've seen. The model is laid out in Message 1. Each step in the model is verifiable, we can see the processes in action.
All I see from you is smartass arrogancy. I do not doubt for a second you see it that way, but for the enlightenment of the other readers, perhaps you can provide links to the examples that support your position? The facts are that the current models explain what is seen. If Creation Science ever wants to become something more than a joke, it needs to create models that also stand up to examination. So far, all you have presented have been Special Pleadings and Fantasy. This is a good place for you to present the Creationist explanation for sand. One model was suggested way back up thread and the question asked in Message 28 if this is the Creationist model.
"Conventional sand creation as found in the current models interrupted by a 40 day rainfall followed by an approximately one year recessional event and then followed by additional sand creation by the conventional methods?" Is that the Creationist model, because if so, we can look at the evidence and see if it can be supported?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 8:36 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2