How to make sand.

Deal with the question. How to make sand.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Deal with the question. How to make sand.Do not bring your nonsense or bullshit over here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

1. The word "determined" is what distinguishes the days. The days were not determined until the end of day four. The days before day four were not yet determined i.e. established as to a set time length.
Applying the science, this makes good sense being that likely more time and heat was required for creation of the atmosphere. As well, perhaps God created the seeds and provided the time and whatever was needed for the ecology to be in place in preparation for the 24 hour 5th and 6th days when he was to create other living things.Imo, undetermined days means no length of evenings and mornings/days yet established.Furthermore, applying the logic and reason to the science relative to the Biblical record, likely the sun and moon had much to do with the rotation of the earth, again supporting my hypothesis that the days before completion of the sun and moon were undetermined as to length.2. As for the age of the earth, I see narry a word in the record as to how old it was in it's watery dark and void state before the Holy Spirit began working to do the creation. As in the alleged BB before mystery, this remains a mystery. My take on why it was not addressed in the record is that there was no reason for it to be known to mankind. The record begins with as statement about God having created the earth and heavens. Then comes the work being done to prepare the planet and create the things in it to suit the designer/creator, almighty Jehovah, God of the Bible to whom I give all praise, glory and honor!(ABE: The above has been said to say this: As per the Biblical record, the sand could have been formed, sorted and placed both before creative work began on the planet, during the undetermined early days of creation and via the flood. The details of the first two would be unknown as well as some aspects of the flood relative to sand.}Btw, I've been on a 7000 plus road trip and posting has been very sporadic. Your patience is appreciated. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

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 not aware of any moon sand, but perhaps there's other mysterious sand on planets and/or moons. Here's the link but I wasn't able to access the info. Perhaps some of the mystery of earth's sand is relevant to the mystery pertaining to the other planets and/or moons. Science | AAAS - Similar pages Edited by Buzsaw, : Update Topic .

---

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

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!

IAmJoseph writes: I cannot think of any process to produce sand that doesn't require water somewhere along the way. In theory, maybe you could have an ash fall that consisted of only sand-sized particles, but there are two problems with that. One, volcanic eruptions tend not to be good at sorting particle sizes, and two, they involve water (in the explosion itself). Maybe three problems: I cannot think of any ash beds I've seen where there is a significant sand-sized fraction to the ash--so maybe eruptions don't produce much material at that size. Actually, one process might be if you had asteroid impacts breaking down pre-existing rocks (and we're ignoring the fact that water might have been involved in the production of those pre-existing rocks) and you had wind sorting the resulting material and depositing a body of sand-sized particles, then okay...

(this is an old comment, but relevant)
The Matt wrote: But if we're going to be really pedantic, the weathering products themselves aren't sand. Breaking down a rock doesn't sort the resulting weathering products...there are going to be bits of the rock that aren't sand-sized--turning them into a body of sand requires some sorting/transport/deposition mechanism. These ARE physical processes. Even if you produce biogenic clasts by some fully chemical process--maybe precipitate them totally out of the water column and the process only precipitates sand-sized particles--the process of those particles settling and accumulating is a physical one.

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!

Buzsaw wrote: First the Windrivers (I love those mountains!) are eroding significantly, at a measurable rate.Second (and I'm presuming you're talking about streams IN the Windrivers?), most of the waterways up in the mountains are headwaters and are doing most of their weathering by chemical means. Not only that, but flow in those channels is highly variable and beds tend not to have a huge sand bedload. That being said, the bedloads of many of the channel's I have seen in the Windrivers were definitely sandy. What does "uniform sanding" mean? I have no idea what you're talking about. There have been times in Earth history with higher sea levels than today, where much of the currently exposed land was submerged. Is this what you mean by more watery? If there is no atmosphere, where does the water come from (waves and erosion)?

What sort of chemical can you think of that doesn't involve water? I cannot come up with one. Yep. Probably, that is how gravitational sorting works on Earth.

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!

Wow...I have to admit that one didn't occur to me. Since you posed the question specifically related to the flood, I don't think we have to wrack our brains going too far off the reservation to create sand bodies. All relevant processes will involve normal Earth surface materials and processes I would think. Good luck in getting an actual model out of them. What they always seem to choose to forget is that the people who really got the science of sedimentology going were in large part creationists trying to explain what they saw within a Biblical framework. They couldn't do it. Everything they found disproved the notion of a global flood. I think we're past the point where we have to indulge them by trying to come up with mechanisms. As far as I'm concerned, they have to come up with plausible ways of explaining what exists out there in a flood context and disprove our evidence against a flood. 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!

Happy to...can you educate me on exactly how to do that?