How to make sand.

The recessional event is the time for the flood waters to recede.So once again I ask if your model is:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Genesis 1:2 depicts an undeterminate period of time when the pre-Edenic planet was a dark premordial soup having the water and the earth unseparated. 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.) 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.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

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? I'm sorry, but does that even have any Biblical support so it could be considered a Special Pleading? 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

I'm sorry but the text says the Holy Spirit and light came at the time of the rising up of the waters to create the atmosphere, clearly implying evaporation which takes heat and lots of it to effect that much evaporation. I'm applying some science, logic and reason to the account according to what is clearly implied.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.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Buzsaw, why do you do this? How can you be applying science, logic, and reason, when you deny the entire content of all geoscience, most of bioscience, and considerable portions of chemistry and physics? How can you be applying what it says in the Bible concerning science when it says nothing about modern science at all?What you are doing is taking your faulty idea of what the Bible says and taking your faulty idea of what science says, and glue them together into some bizzare myth that is not remotely supported by either. If radioactivity magically works differently in the past so as to support your mythological pseudo-reality, how can you justify not saying heat and light work differently in the past to support some other random mythological pseudo-reality? Is it because the concept of radioactive decay is harder to understand than the concept of heat and light to the (I really hate having to say this) child-like mind?The principles of heat and light, along with radioactive decay are all quite well described by physics. Before you pretend to understand such principles well enough to pick and choose physics along with pick and choose the Bible to create your unsupported myth, vapor canopy and all, shouldn't you actually learn something about the physics?Why don't you just say it was a miracle and stay out of the self-appointed role of final authority in what should be taught in public schools? If your glued-together myth is as compelling as either mainstream Christianity or science I'm sure all you have to do is sit and wait for the masses to follow.So, can you explain how one year of water erosion creates such vast and deep deposits of sand within the time frame alloted, without resorting to any dodge concerning how sand is somehow formed differently in the past or sand is formed miraculously? Remember, the 'universally deluded' geoscientists, by virtue of training and/or employment, pretty much can trace where the sand came from by using petrology along with some other principles that are consistent with math, physics, and chemistry.Edited by anglagard, : a little addition to the end.

---

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

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. 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

A. Premordial soup/mud covers the earth.
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.
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.
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.
E. The above is what the Buzsaw hypothesis sggests as a possible cause and effect of the phenomenon of sand as this creationist observes it relative to the Biblical record.1. Other than the source of energy, what about the above is contrary to modern science laws, applications and observations etc.2. How can you alledge that the Genesis account states nothing applicable to modern science?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

The big problem with the Buzsaw hypothesis is that sand is made of silica which is far from soluble. It can't be produced by evaporation.Also both A and B are contradicted by our sicentifc understanding of the history of the Earth.D is just speculation based on myth

quote:

---

How can you alledge that the Genesis account states nothing applicable to modern science?

---

Well it's pretty obvious isn't it ? The original waters are a common feature of Middle Eastern Creation myths - and not at all scientific. There are stars far older than Earth. THe sky is not a solid barrier. Day and night are a consequence of the Earth's rotation on it's axis and have nothing to do with some "separation of light and darkness" that took place before the sun existed.

Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading. Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading. Sorry, but that is assuming facts not in evidence. Special Pleading. Nothing but Special Pleading. Well you are assuming facts not in evidence for one thing. 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

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.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How come it never shows up when it has an opportunity to prove its existence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

and are just resorting to ad harmonium diatribes

---

Ah, the sweet sound of the ad harmonium!

Thanks for addressing the specifics, Paul. I'm tireing of Jar's substanceless yada. That's not what I hypothesised. 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. 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. 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.Since the record has the earth alone before day four, perhaps this means that the earth came from the other heavens and was placed into the Milky Way galaxy. The revelator of Revelation did prophesy that a new earth would come after this one is finally destroyed subsequent to the millenial reigh of Jesus and that a holy city, "New Jerusalem" would come down from Heaven to the new earth. See Revelation 21:1,2.Likely the legends among global cultures of a flood time on earth was relative to the post Edenic flood and not the premodial soup to which I refer to.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

The question was raised as to how Biblicalist creationists account for the quantity of sand on earth. I'm addressing that. OK?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

That is not a model, it is just another Special Pleading.The question is, "How to make sand." I'm sorry, that is not even a Special Pleading, just nonsense. 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