Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to make sand.
jar
Member (Idle past 393 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 47 of 121 (431799)
11-02-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
11-01-2007 7:05 PM


Re: The Two Biblical Flood Accounts
quote:
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.
This really makes no sense. Why would an assumed mix of mud (which is NOT mentioned in the Bible) and water produce sand, no matter how much it was stirred ?
quote:
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. T
SInce the Bible doesn't say any such thing it is far more likely that the author of the story didn't know what he was talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 11-01-2007 7:05 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 121 (431801)
11-02-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-17-2007 6:09 PM


the smartass answer
So what is a Flood model for making sand?
lots and lots of parrotfish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-17-2007 6:09 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by The Matt, posted 11-02-2007 8:03 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 5541 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 49 of 121 (431815)
11-02-2007 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
11-02-2007 3:11 AM


Re: the smartass answer
Only works for carbonates!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 11-02-2007 3:11 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 121 (431819)
11-02-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
11-01-2007 8:01 PM


Re: It would be nice if Creation Science actually existed.
jar writes:
If you have a model other than the Special Pleadings and nonsense, here is the place to present it.
Where is your model? You have nothing more verifiable than I so far as I've seen. All I see from you is smartass arrogancy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 11-01-2007 8:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 11-02-2007 9:02 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 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

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 121 (431825)
11-02-2007 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-17-2007 6:09 PM


jar writes:
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?
1. The mountains were allegedly not original but created by tectonic plate uplift etc and are still high, indicative of no significant desintigration as your model purposes.
2. How is your model any more viable than mine which depicts an undeterminate timeperiod of soupy mix on earth being churned by seismic activity etc so as to grind up the rocks & pebbles into sand etc?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-17-2007 6:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jar, posted 11-02-2007 9:48 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 54 by sidelined, posted 11-02-2007 10:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 56 by kuresu, posted 11-02-2007 1:02 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2007 5:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 53 of 121 (431826)
11-02-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 9:31 AM


Let's see if there is anything there.
1. The mountains were allegedly not original but created by tectonic plate uplift etc and are still high, indicative of no significant desintigration as your model purposes.
Which mountains? What about those mountains which are worn down and which show the signs of being worn down? What is the origin of the sand in your model?
2. How is your model any more viable than mine which depicts an undeterminate timeperiod of soupy mix on earth being churned by seismic activity etc so as to grind up the rocks & pebbles into sand etc?
There is evidence for the things mentioned in the conventional model. We can see the results of physical and chemical weathering, the creation of sand both from weathered rock and from the remains of living organisms. We can gauge the rate of creation, even determine the methods of creation, transportation and deposit.
They are all visible, proven methods.
So far you have presented no evidence of your "undeterminate timeperiod of soupy mix on earth being churned by seismic activity etc so as to grind up the rocks & pebbles into sand etc" except a Special Pleading and even there there is NO evidence for any "soupy mix" or for the processes you assert.
While the conventional model relies on observations that can be verified by anyone, your model invokes only fantasy which is not even supported by the texts as you claim.
So once again, what is the Creationist model for making sand?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 9:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 54 of 121 (431827)
11-02-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 9:31 AM


Buzsaw
1. The mountains were allegedly not original but created by tectonic plate uplift etc and are still high, indicative of no significant desintigration as your model purposes.
This is interesting. First off,how high were the mountains allegedly and how do you know this?
Second,how much energy was expended in the making of the mountains? This can be determined by assessing how much uplift occurred in what time frame. Is it possible for that uplift in that time frame to be accomplished?
Now comes the crux of the issue.where did the sand come from in the scenario of tectonic uplift?
. How is your model any more viable than mine which depicts an undeterminate timeperiod of soupy mix on earth being churned by seismic activity etc so as to grind up the rocks & pebbles into sand etc?
How did the rock get transformed into sand beneath water and why does it only show on certain shores and not others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 9:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 55 of 121 (431850)
11-02-2007 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals
10-29-2007 5:26 PM


Re: A tabletop model of sand formation.
It's a matter of scale. The flood accellerted the ensandification process a trillion fold.
You made the statement, where is the proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 10-29-2007 5:26 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 56 of 121 (431854)
11-02-2007 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 9:31 AM


Please tell me how old the Appalachain mountains are.
Next, please tell me which generation of Appalachain mountains we currently have.
Third, please tell me where all the soil of the east coast came from if not from the mountains.
As to why mountains are high, here's a hint for you. The indian plate is shrinking. But Everest isn't growing higher. Why?
If plate tectonics can build mountains (which it can and does), what's to stop it from exceeding the rate of erosion? What's to stop mountain building from delaying the effect of erosion--that is, why do the mountains not shrink as fast if only erosion was occurring?
Third, erosion rates are highly variable--fastest in places with moisture, slowest in the driest places.
2. How is your model any more viable than mine which depicts an undeterminate timeperiod of soupy mix on earth being churned by seismic activity etc so as to grind up the rocks & pebbles into sand etc?
This is nonsense. Our model is viable because we can observe it (and have). We know that these processes occur and how they work. Your's is not for a simple reason--how does a liguid behave when shaken? How do solids in a liquid behave when shaken? Oh wait, solids sit in the bottom of the jar (assuming they have greater density than water, which all but one rock does, and that's a volcanic rock). So now you have to get sand from the bottom up. Where does this occur? How does/would this occur?
Edited by kuresu, : hm. This is my bicential posting. two hundred years ago a piece of paper was signed. which year am I talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 9:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 57 of 121 (431879)
11-02-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 9:31 AM


The mountains were allegedly not original but created by tectonic plate uplift etc and are still high...
Uh....some mountains are still high. Some others, like the Wichitas in southwestern Oklahoma, don't get above 2500 feet. All that's left is house-sized granite boulders that were the cores of Himalaya-scale mountains in the Silurean, and thousands of square miles of the Granite Wash formation down below the ground. The Granite Wash is made of cobbles, rocks, and sand-sized stuff that eroded off the mountains and washed out past Amarillo, Texas. Some of it is under four miles of newer sediment now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 9:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 10:48 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 121 (431931)
11-02-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Coragyps
11-02-2007 5:32 PM


We are all aware that mountains can vary in height. I grew up in the foothills of the Windriver range of the Rockies in Wyoming. I packed back into the mountains on hunting and fishing trips with my parents and friends. The Windriver Range did not appear to have been worn down significantly nor were the rivers, riverbeds and valleys necessarily sandy implicating creation of sand.
2. The Ocean beaches and shallow areas which were affected by tides appear to be where the uniform sanding occurs. Perhaps the premordial soup had currents and movement due to the Moon tides etc.
3. As I understand it, mainline science believes that the ancient earth was significantly more watery than the present earth and the atmosphere has changed.
4. As per the Genesis model, there was no atmosphere until God intervened in the working on the premordial earth. No atmosphere = high incidence of bombardment upon earth from asteroides and debris from space being that the ionosphere (if I recall correctly) is what keeps these things from destroying the planet as it is.
This bombardment would likely have pulverized a lot of rock as well as create monster waves and erosion to form much of the sand observed today.
5. Since the Genesis record gives no info on the age of the planet itself, all of the above activity and more could have gone on for a very long time.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Coragyps, posted 11-02-2007 5:32 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 11-02-2007 11:17 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 60 by Coragyps, posted 11-03-2007 11:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 85 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 9:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 59 of 121 (431935)
11-02-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 10:48 PM


More Special Pleadings and misreprestentation of what is in the Bible
2. The Ocean beaches and shallow areas which were affected by tides appear to be where the uniform sanding occurs. Perhaps the premordial soup had currents and movement due to the Moon tides etc.
You have offered NO evidence of some "premordial soup" and there is nothing in Genesis to support that. Further:
Perhaps the premordial soup had currents and movement due to the Moon tides etc.
is nonsense because and cannot even be supported by your Special Pleading misrepresentation of the Bible since the land was separated from the sea on day 3 while the moon was created on day 4. So once again not only are you attempting a Special Pleading, you continue to misrepresent what the Bible actually says.
Genesis 1:
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.
3. As I understand it, mainline science believes that the ancient earth was significantly more watery than the present earth and the atmosphere has changed.
More nonsense unless you can actually supply a model, which you have not done, and supply some reasoning of why that is even relevant.
4. As per the Genesis model, there was no atmosphere until God intervened in the working on the premordial earth. No atmosphere = high incidence of bombardment upon earth from asteroides and debris from space being that the ionosphere (if I recall correctly) is what keeps these things from destroying the planet as it is.
This bombardment would likely have pulverized a lot of rock as well as create monster waves and erosion to form much of the sand observed today.
I'm sorry but again, there is nothing there but an attempted Special Pleading which is factually nonsense and not supported by the Bible. An atmosphere has NOTHING to do with the incidence of meteor or asteroid hits. Nor is there any mention of such events.
5. Since the Genesis record gives no info on the age of the planet itself, all of the above activity and more could have gone on for a very long time.
Any reference to Genesis is a Special Pleading, however Genesis 1 DOES go into the time and it says 6 days. If you wish to continue to misrepresent what is in the Bible fine.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 10:48 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2007 3:47 PM jar has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 60 of 121 (431987)
11-03-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
11-02-2007 10:48 PM


The Windriver Range did not appear to have been worn down significantly nor were the rivers, riverbeds and valleys necessarily sandy implicating creation of sand.
How fast does the Wind/Bighorn flow every May during snowmelt? I think you'll find that sand in great abundance down along the Yellowstone, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers and out around Venice, Louisiana, Buz. Just the big rocks are all that stays in the riverbed up in the mountains. And the Windriver Range looks "young" because, compared to the Wichitas or the Adirondaks, it is young. Like one-fifth to a tenth as old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2007 10:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024