Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,905 Year: 4,162/9,624 Month: 1,033/974 Week: 360/286 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to make sand.
jar
Member (Idle past 423 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 62 of 121 (432086)
11-03-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Buzsaw
11-03-2007 3:47 PM


Topic Buz is "How to make sand?"
Jar, you conveniently (likely on purpose) omitted some of the more pertenant verses relative to my hypothesis.
Buz, that is an absolutely FALSE statement as anyone can see who looks at Message 59 and you are once again misrepresenting both me and the Bible.
Some of the verses you did cite were ones which had nothing to do with the points of the quote from me (not designated) to me but tied it in with the irrevelant verses which you cited.
Actually I did include your quote as well as explain the relevance as anyone who reads Message 59 can see.
This is not only shabby work on your part but it is deceptive and appears to be designed to somehow malign my intelligence.
It is not your intelligence I questioned but your accuracy.
1. Deep dark watery planet surface to which God via his spirit applied work indicative of movement of some manner for an undeterminate period of time; undeterminate because there was yet no sun & moon to effect a 24 hr day.
This is called a Special Pleading, you are referencing the Bible as though it were evidence of something factual. It is also irrelevant to making sand.
2. After an undeterminate time, light is applied, likely via the same spirit of God which was doing the work.
Still just a Special Pleading and irrelevant to making sand.
3. Verse 6 clearly implies significant evaporation to the extent of creating the atmosphere as per science in that after light indicative of extensive heat so as to evaporate up a significant amount of water enough to create dry land and seas. This all again ensues for an undeterminate period of time, given there was yet no sun and moon etc.
Still a Special Pleading but also a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says and you quoted. There is NO mention of evaporation or of an atmosphere in verse 6. It is also irrelevant to the question of how to make sand.
4. Not until all of this work is applied to earth does the sun and moon kick in to become the determination of time as we measure it today and to sustain the plants (created on day 3 before sun & moon) and all living from thence on.
Another Special Pleading as well as a misrepresentation of what he Bible actually says. The Bible clearly says that there were days, long before there was a sun. You can spout any fantasies you want but the Bible lists days. It is also irrelevant to the question of how to make sand.
So ALL you are doing is continuing to post Special Pleading, irrelevant nonsense and to misrepresent what the Bible says.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-topic

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Buzsaw, posted 11-03-2007 3:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 64 of 121 (432962)
11-09-2007 10:44 AM


Bump for Antioch's Fire
Start at Message 1 sir.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 121 (433943)
11-13-2007 6:03 PM


Bump
Still looking for a model to examine.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 66 of 121 (434689)
11-16-2007 9:47 PM


Still looking for the Creationist explanation for sand.
Is there some reason that Creationists refuse to provide their model that explains sand?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 11-17-2007 6:35 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 69 of 121 (434790)
11-17-2007 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Brian
11-17-2007 6:35 AM


Re: Still looking for the Creationist explanation for sand.
If I could get one to make the Special Pleading and just admit their explanation is magic, that would be one thing and we could discuss that. However so far no one has done even that.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Brian, posted 11-17-2007 6:35 AM Brian has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 121 (435695)
11-22-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
11-22-2007 12:21 PM


Support? or can we head towards the topic?
Buz writes:
1. Because God being the one who originated all true science, science should be applied when applicable. As per Gen 1, it took more heat than the sun could provide to create an atmosphere from a dark cold watery planet.
Huh?
Genesis 1 writes:
Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day.
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.
So it appears that the atmosphere, sky, existed even before the sun was created.
buz writes:
2. According to the Biblical record of Gen 1, the 24 hour day was not determined until day four. According to the text it was the presence of the sun that did that.
HUH?
Let's look.
Genesis 1 writes:
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day.
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.
Wow.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the first day.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the second day.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the third day.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.
Exactly the same description is used for each of the first four days.
But WAIT! There is more.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the fifth day.
quote:
And there was evening, and there was morning”the sixth day.
The same terms are used for the fifth and sixth day.
So where is the Biblical record of Gen 1 that supports your positions?
What the hell does any of this nonsense have to do with the topic; in case you missed it the topic is "How to make sand."
Edited by jar, : add topic request.
Edited by jar, : Fix sub-title so it doesn't ruffle Buz's feathers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 11-22-2007 12:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2007 7:45 AM jar has replied
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2007 7:48 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 121 (436069)
11-24-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by IamJoseph
11-24-2007 7:45 AM


Re: Support? or can we head towards the topic?
Deal with the question. How to make sand.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2007 7:45 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 121 (436070)
11-24-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by IamJoseph
11-24-2007 7:48 AM


Re: Support? or can we head towards the topic?
Deal with the question. How to make sand.
Do not bring your nonsense or bullshit over here.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2007 7:48 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 121 (436353)
11-25-2007 9:11 AM


So is there NO Creationist explanation for sand?
Well, this has been interesting. As usual, when we begin to actually look and plead and beg for a Biblical Creationist model for creating sand, the best we can get is an Evolutionist pretending to be a Creo and even that person ran away before giving a clear, concise statement of the model.
This might be of little importance if it was not part of a pattern, a pattern we see with every single part of what would be needed for a Creation model.
It seems that there are no Scientists doing Creation Science, no model to explain any of what is seen, and that in case after case, time after time, issue after issue, when we move away from the stage where the Creationist can dance and misdirect and palm the pea to ask specific questions, the Creationists is shown, as in the Wizard of Oz, to be not the Great and Powerful being but rather a small, insignificant failure hiding behind a curtain.
So once again I call out.
Is there a Creationist model for sand that we can examine to see if it explains what we actually see in the world?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 121 (439352)
12-08-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
12-07-2007 8:11 PM


Re: Planet & Moon Sand
The issue Buz is for any Creation Scientists or Biblical Creationists or ID asserters to present a model that explains sand.
The truth is we have seen nothing like that happen.
The reason is that Creation Scientists and Biblical Creationists and ID asserters HAVE no model for anything. All they have are deep pockets for the gullible and ignorant to fill.
It would be nice if they could ever present a model that stood up to examination, even one that failed examination, but so far that has never happened.
So the question remains Buz, "How to make sand?"
Maybe once we get past that we can go on to all the other things that Creation Scientists and Biblical Creationists and ID asserters can't explain.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 12-07-2007 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 121 (439753)
12-10-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by JB1740
12-10-2007 9:08 AM


I cannot think of any process to produce sand that doesn't require water somewhere along the way.
I can imagine a process of thermal or chemical weathering and then some form of wind driven distribution and sorting that might produce sand.
However, that is still basically the same model as in the traditional geological model. It is still multistage, the original mass must be created, weathered , transported and sorted.
I also wonder if in the absence of some atmosphere, if there might not be some gravitational sorting possible. If so would that not be seen as a reverse of normal sorting with the smaller, lighter objects higher and closer to the source and the larger heavier objects traveling further downhill?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 9:08 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 9:38 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 121 (439760)
12-10-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by JB1740
12-10-2007 9:38 AM


water substitutes
What sort of chemical can you think of that doesn't involve water? I cannot come up with one.
Liquid methane, liquid carbon-dioxide off the top of my head, but it is an old head and filled mostly with trivia and few things of value, worn and often abused, unreliable and often in need of a reboot.
The key question for the thread though, is exactly how could sand be made? I will admit I was only thinking of the earth when I proposed the topic, but the real bottom line question is "Is there any methods other than the conventional model that can explain the presence of sand?"
Is there something other than the build it up originally and then weather it and then transport and sort it model that traditional geology uses?
The classic Biblical Creationist answer is "The Flood", and what I really want from them is the details of exactly how "The Flood model" works.
If we can get them to describe the mechanism, we can then move to the next step which would be to apply that model to what is seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 9:38 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 10:18 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 423 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 121 (439766)
12-10-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by JB1740
12-10-2007 10:18 AM


Re: water substitutes
Like, for example, I would love for them to explain, as a flood deposit, the interbedded sandstone and mudstone bodies with sporadic coal seams that characterize the Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation in eastern Wyoming/southern Montana.
Marvelous, something I know nothing about.
Can you start a thread on that?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 10:18 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 10:30 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024