Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   Creationism Road Trip
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 301 of 409 (680666)
11-20-2012 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Rahvin
11-20-2012 12:34 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Yup, but to get plant material you first need some sand.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2012 12:34 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2012 1:51 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 302 of 409 (680668)
11-20-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by jar
11-20-2012 1:37 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Depends on the plant. Algae grows in free-standing water, and lichens and even some flowers grow on basically bare rock. Excepting the flowers, these forms of plant life preceded soil-growing plants, and indeed even soil. No sand required.
Regardless of how you want to spin it though, your actual point that time is required for the creation of soil is accurate. I'm just being nit-picky.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 11-20-2012 1:37 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 303 of 409 (680674)
11-20-2012 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:10 AM


Re: Dogma? Yours or Mine?
Oh we do adjust all the time to new understandings about how geology works. It always improves our knowledge of what the Flood would have done. But what you don't seem to notice is that establishment geology, same as evolutionist science, that is, the sciences that pertain to the PREHISTORIC PAST, are just as speculative and once established just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable.
Is this a tacit admission that flood geology is unfalsifiable? Are you saying that no matter what the evidence is you will still cling to flood geology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:10 AM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(5)
Message 304 of 409 (680675)
11-20-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:27 AM


Re: Reading the Bible the way it was meant to be read
Faith writes:
Yes there are a lot of people out there who read the Bible falsely. I read it the way the Protestant Reformers read it, Sola Scriptura and all that, the way the true believers down the centuries read it.
I don't think that's correct.
My understanding is that, among other things, the reformation was a rebellion against the authority of the pope and from a vatican imposed orthodoxy. The point of "Sola Scriptura" was that the scriptures were to be the sole authority on matters of faith. In effect, Christians were freed from the dictates of other men, and were to decide on matters of faith for themselves, based on their own reading of the scriptures. That is why we see a far broader diversity of views among protestants than we see among catholics.
When we look around today, we see fundamentalists bowing to the authority of pope Ken Ham. We see a neo-vatican orthodoxy being imposed by a fundamentalist hierarchy. We see Faith pressuring foreveryoung to follow her theology.
I see that as contrary to the principles of Sola Scriptura. After listening to Faith, foreveryoung has expressed his readings of the scripture. And, in accordance with Sola Scriptura, that should have settled it. Faith should not be pressuring him to change.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(3)
Message 305 of 409 (680686)
11-20-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:27 AM


Re: The ENTIRE geological column.
Faith writes:
That Black Sea stuff is an accommodation to the OE paradigm. The Bible SAYS "the whole world," that MEANS the WHOLE WORLD. You've bought the OE. You'd be a lot better off if you just gave up the Bible, because it's a great sin to try to conform it to such nonsense. Go whole hog and become a secular geologist, you'll be a lot safer. Maybe later on if there's still time you can rethink it all and come back to the Bible. A compromised Bible is worse than no Bible.
I haven't written in this thread as I have zero knowledge of geology and so there was no point. I just can't let this post stand though.
This post discredits you, the Bible and the Christian faith. Try reading Paul where we are told not to judge.
Actually the faith that you espouse can more accurately be called Biblianity as opposed to Christianity. Your faith is based on an understanding of how God uses the scriptures to reach out to mankind that isn't even Biblical, particularly from a New Testament perspective.
Christianity is to be God centred and Christ centred. The Bible, is the narrative or story of God and His creation written by fallible men inspired to transcribe their views, their experiences and their own stories. IMHO the Bible is a tool used by God to reach out to us as part of His ongoing efforts, through mankind, to bring the world to the place where peace, love and perfect justice is the norm.
Christ is the Word of God. The Bible itself agrees with that. Jesus fulfilled all of the OT which was a foreshadowing of God's word incarnate in Jesus. I know that you will call the Bible the written Word of God but which do you believe when they are in conflict. One simple example is when Jesus talks about divorce saying that Moses, (not God), told you one thing but I'm telling you another. Which do you choose?
Trying to read the Bible as a book dictated by God giving as an unbiased history or as a modern science text gives us a highly inaccurate picture of the true nature of God as seen in Jesus.
Does it really matter if the flood was world-wide or local? Isn’t it more important to get the message that God is not about to give up on us in spite of the evil in the world? It is like the story of the snake in the garden. It doesn't matter whether or not it was a real snake — what matters is what the snake said.
Note to admin. I know that this looks like I'm dragging this thread right off topic but Faith uses the Bible as the reference for her argument and I think that it is important to make the point that the reference that she is using is not actually relevant to the discussion.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:27 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 306 of 409 (680688)
11-20-2012 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
11-20-2012 10:50 AM


still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi Faith,
I still don't see any biblical references for your assertions.
I don't recall making much out of turbulence, no idea why you do. I believe I said something about the first 40 days and nights of ceaseless rain as breaking up the land, dissolving it etc, but I also mentioned that a point came where the water was simply standing for some long period, and I think I even used the word "tranquil."
To cause erosion and "breaking up the land" you need energy in the water == turbulence.
The point I'm making is the concept of the whole flood being gentle with the water rising from the oceans as a not-out-of-the-ordinary rain falls is not contradicting the bible as far as I can see, but it does not cause any significant effect on the land masses -- similar to what we see in modern floods.
What on earth would prevent it in an event of this size raining on every inch of land in the world? ...
The concept of a rather gentle rain is not contradicted by the bible as far as I can see. Nor is the absence of mudslides contradictory to the biblical account as far as I can see.
What reason would there be to assume something that is NOT specifically addressed in the bible?
... I think you're just being contrary for no reason whatever.
No, I am pointing out that your assertions do not appear to be from literal reading of the bible, but rather they come from imagination. Reading the bible to mean rain gentle enough that it does not cause mudslides is not contradicting the bible is it?
Why on earth would I need a source for something as intuitively obvious as that? If you like I can go with "ceaseless rain" or "steady rain," I don't see that the result would be much different.
Because we are talking about you basing your assertions on a literal reading of the bible, not one augmented by imagination or "unbiblical" assumptions. If the bible does not say it, and say it specifically, then you can not say it is from a literal reading of the bible.
I believe I've said three or four times by now, possibly on this thread, that there is precious little IN the Bible but that what IS in the Bible is the basis for INFERENCES about the Flood, how it most likely would have behaved, and that whatever speculations are used must not contradict the Bible. ...
In other words it is not based on a literal reading of the bible, but on imagination, as long as this imagination is not contradicted by the bible.
For instance, can we imagine that the sky was green and the air acidic during the flood, because the bible does not say otherwise? We could, but why should we, when we can imagine that it was similar to what we see today: why should we imagine something out of the ordinary unless it is specifically mentioned?
... Your questions are meaningless.
But they don't contradict the bible do they? If they don't contradict the bible AND if they conform to what we know about weather and geology and physics etc, then it could be a valid inference of what IS covered in the bible -- as valid as yours or foreveryoung's or anyone else's ...
Oh honestly, RAZD, this Flood could not possibly have NOT caused mudslides. Again you are obviously just making up stuff to be contrary, you have no honest reason for this nonsense.
Argument from incredulity logical fallacy. There are many floods that occur that do not cause mudslides, there are many rainstorms that do not cause mudslides. Why should I consider mudslides to have happened unless they are specifically mentioned in the biblical account?
Does it contradict the bible to say there were no mudslides?
... would have dissoved the whole land mass, ...
It appears that you do not use the word "dissolve" in the same manner as the rest of us.
quote:
dis•solve [dih-zolv] Show IPA verb dissolved, dissolving, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to make a solution of, as by mixing with a liquid; pass into solution: to dissolve salt in water.
You seem to mean erosion instead.
The idea here is that the AMOUNT of water PLUS the pounding by the rain for forty straight days and nights would have dissoved the whole land mass, and the idea that it wouldn't have is just perverse.
More argument from incredulity.
Again, can you point to where the bible says "pounding"? I've lived in the Pacific Northwest and you can have weeks of constant rain -- a steady drizzle -- but it isn't "pounding" rain just because it is of a long duration. Similarly there are rain forests where annual rainfall lasts a long time and exceeds 100" .
Why should I assume any different level of rain unless it is specifically mentioned in the biblical account?
In addition, what the bible says - as far as I can see - is that the water rose, no major turbulence is mentioned, until it covered the mountains, NOT that the mountains "dissolved" or eroded down.
I'm doing exactly what you are doing, imagining what such a Flood would have done, ...
Except that we get radically different results. Mine do not assume anything out of the ordinary occurred.
... and just what evolutionists do when they imagine what swupposedly happened in a layer of sandstone ...
Curiously, evolutionary biologists do not assume\imagine anything about geology other than that the scientists in that field are doing their job in accordance with the scientific method and that the peer reviewed results are the best explanations of the evidence available.
Geologists, on the other hand, study and test concepts of what happens to sand when submitted to pressure and heat.
Paleontologist study the objects and fossils embedded in the sandstone complexes.
... laughably refer to as a huge era of time. ...
Argument by prejudicial language logical fallacy.
Curiously, huge eras of time have been measured. The earth IS at least 4.5 billion years old. This is based on the empirical objective evidence that shows parts of the earth to be this old. Logically you cannot have the earth younger than any part of it. See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for information on the development of those age measurements.
... Yes I'm speculating, ...
Making stuff up that is unbiblical.
... imagining what the Flood would ...
Not "would" -- a better term would be "could" because what you imagine is not documented is it? Even better would be "might if things went according to my imagination"
... have done based on my understanding of what rain and floods do ...
Taken to a rather unreasonable extreme, beyond anything ever observed as being done by rain and flood in the known world.
... and what the Bible says about the Flood. ...
Which, IIRC, is "precious little" -- it rained, the fountains opened, the water rose.
... Pardon me if I think my speculations make a ton more sense than your nonsense here.
Why do you think so? Confirmation bias? Cognitive dissonance? Pride?
You said: "whatever speculations are used must not contradict the Bible" -- do my comments contradict the bible?
We're talking intelligent inferences from the Bible here, not your silly excuses for inferences. To multiply appropriately should give us at least millions of mudslides around the globe and you know what, you know that, but as long as we must depend on speculation you figure you can give the most unlikely speculations and get away with it. Oh how about thousands if you need a more conservative estimate?
Curiously, there is no evidence of anywhere near this number of mudslides. Mudslides do leave tell-tale traces and what we frequently see are contradictory evidence showing that a different process led to soil and sand deposits.
Some mudslides have been identified in the fossil record, so it is not a matter of not recognizing when this occurs.
You might want to read Dr Adequate's excellent thread on Introduction To Geology.
Oh it could have been fairly nonturbulent, but probably not just a gentle welling up, and the rain would have done the work of dissolving the land mass anyway.
And presumably the mountains just crystallized back into existence when the rain stopped?
If you mean eroding instead of dissolving then yes, it is likely that there would be some erosion of existing soils into streams and lakes, similar to what we see today. We can also see that a duration of only 40 days of rain in one storm would likely contribute less erosion than has been observed via the numerous rainstorms over the last couple thousand years of known history.
Curiously , no mountain has been seen to have been eroded into the see in thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the accumulated duration of rain on some of those mountains exceeding 40 days by orders of magnitude.
We can also quantify that erosion and see that even all of that erosion that has been observed during historical times is insufficient to account for formations such as the Grand Canyon.
Again, we're talking inference BASED on the very little information given in the Bible and you know it. I'm just better at imagining what a worldwide Flood would do than you are. By a long shot. As are all creationist Flooodists.
In other words you are imagining "unbiblical stuff" -- scenarios not in the bible -- to suit your personal fancy, and find that your imagination suits your fancy better than mine.
And you still have not shown a single biblical reference that shows my concepts contradict what is in the bible, or that they contradict science for that matter.
The rain would have loosened so much sediment the water would be full of the stuff by now. ...
Which does not cause mudslides. You did not explain why mudslides would occur.
Nor is it necessary that the water be "full of stuff" as the ability of water to keep objects in suspension is a function of particle size and density and turbulence (mixing energy).
... I've many times wondered if the sediments started precipitating out during this phase of the Flood. ...
Precipitation is a continuous process, it doesn't turn off and on. The larger denser material precipitates first and the smaller lighter material last, sometimes months later, depending on the material (silt and clay for instance). This results in layering by size and density, a readily observable trend, and one that is frequently used to identify geological features.
But we're talking ocean here you know, tides, waves, currents and all that. However quiet the water was it wasn't PERFECTLY quiet by a long shot.
But no land area to butt up against, waves don't really move water from one place to another (the water particles move in a circle), and the water below the surface is significantly quieter than at the surface: at about one wavelength below the surface the movement of water particles due to the wave action is virtually gone.
There is no reason to expect any more effect than what we see today, even in the Bay of Fundy.
Gee another failure of imagination, RAZD? I know you don't want the Flood to make any kind of sense but you are really bending over backwards to be ridiculous about it.
Now we have an ad hominem logical fallacy. Curiously all I am asking is for you to explain your assertion.
This comment does nothing to explain why I should expect something outside the realms of ordinary experience.
Again, of course not, ...
In other words, you have absolutely no biblical reference to justify your assertion. You have no reference of any erosion in the bible at all.
... we're talking intelligent reasonable inference.
Of something that is NOT in the bible.
What a strange idea, of course not. But I avoid the term "literal." I read the Bible the way it was meant to be read, which is sometimes literal, sometimes poetic, sometimes symbolic, sometimes figurative and so on and so forth.
So the flood is symbolic then? Given that a lot of what you attribute to it is imaginary.
I came back to answer this post because you've brought up these issues later in the thread as well, but I have to say the reason I didn't answer it at first is that most of it is just silly. And you know it.
What I know - now - is that you do not have any biblical references for the different aspects you attribute to flood waters, rather that they are based on your imagination.
The reason that you find my comments "silly" is due to cognitive dissonance.
If you cannot show that it contradicts the bible AND if you cannot show that it contradicts what is known to occur by science and observation, then dismissing it as "silly" is just your attempt to deal with information that is counter to your beliefs.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:50 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2012 4:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 308 by foreveryoung, posted 11-20-2012 5:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 307 of 409 (680690)
11-20-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
11-20-2012 4:25 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi Faith,
I still don't see any biblical references for your assertions.
She won't provide any; she doesn't believe they are necessary.
Remember, Faith's real position here is simply that the Flood happened literally as depicted in the King James Bible; it was global in scope, occurred around 4000 years ago, lasted about a year, and was survived by Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark. She believes this to be unquestioningly true.
Her own statements make no secret of her thought process. She has little understanding of geology or physics or really any form of science. She doesn;t think she needs to understand the science.
It is her fervent belief that, if science currently supports a model that invalidates the literal Biblical story, then that scientific model will, some day, be falsified and the Biblical narrative vindicated.
So she doesn;t think particularly hard about the "how." She "knows" the big picture of what happened, and the rest is speculative minutia, with only the Bible being the final arbiter of what may or may not have happened.
That's why her model as presented is unfalsifiable; that's why she responds to everything with "the Flood did it." She knows the end result, she is unaware as to the specifics of the mechanisms involved, and to her those mechanisms happened however they happened and really don't matter because the ultimate conclusion she maintains is that the Biblical story is literally true.
We can go on for quite some time as to how that reasoning is logically fallacious. We can present page after page of evidence invalidating every mechanism she can come up with, like when she says the "land mass was dissolved." It doesn't matter, it will have no effect on her.
The only Biblical references that matter to her are Genesis 7-8. She attempts to "reasonably infer" from that text the mechanisms and specifics of the global Flood, but her inference is wholly detached from observations of the real world. To her mind, the real-world observations will eventually be interpreted "correctly," so why bother with an in-depth thoughtful consideration when the result will be what she already "knows?"

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 4:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(5)
Message 308 of 409 (680691)
11-20-2012 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
11-20-2012 4:25 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
RAZD writes:
No, I am pointing out that your assertions do not appear to be from literal reading of the bible, but rather they come from imagination. Reading the bible to mean rain gentle enough that it does not cause mudslides is not contradicting the bible is it?
Given a steep enough slope, a mudslide will occur once the soil reaches saturation. The subsoil usually has a low water permeability and so it will not slide. However, if water can make its way past the subsoil and penetrate in the saprolite, there will be a landslide if the saprolite is saturated with water and the slope is steep enough. I am not saying this to support a worldwide flood; i'm just clearing up some misinformation here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 4:25 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 8:40 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 309 of 409 (680693)
11-20-2012 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Faith
11-20-2012 11:19 AM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:
What's very odd here is that I haven't said one word about dissolving ROCKS, you guys are making that up. Tangle and now you. I've said many times that the Flood would have dissolved WHATEVER COULD BE DISSOLVED.
I think you did mean that rocks would dissolve didn't you? Theres's nothing much out there in the world to dissolve; if there was it would have dissolved last tuesday when i rained all day. But to prove it you now say...
..........so yeah, some rock would most likely dissolve.
This is chemistry, not geology, and inorganic chemistry at that - the easy stuff you get taught at age 14. Rocks don't dissolve in water - period.
I have no idea what rock existed before the Flood
They would be the soluble kind. Sugar Candy Mountain Range?
Granite didn't because that's a product of volcanism and volcanoes didn't occur until the Flood. Etc. etc.
'Nuff said.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 11:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by foreveryoung, posted 11-20-2012 7:40 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 8:56 PM Tangle has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(8)
Message 310 of 409 (680704)
11-20-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
11-20-2012 6:17 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith is confusing a liquid suspension with a solution. Particles of sand, silt, and clay are heavy enough that in very still conditions, they settle to the bottom. Particles in a solution are small enough to be held in solution by hydrogen bonding to water molecules. Only those substances that permanently "float" in the water are said to be soluble or dissolvable. Many ionic substance fit this description. Not all ionic substances are dissolvable or are weakly soluble. For example, Calcium carbonate does not break into its constituent ionic parts in water. It is however slightly soluble in acid. Rocks in general are silicates. Silicates are generally not polar and therefore do not participate in hydrogen bonding in the presence of water. Silicate rocks do, however, bond with water to form other minerals such as clays, but this only occurs on the outside surface or within cracks. This bonding takes a long period of time and is the reason soil takes so long to form.
A world covered in water for a period of one year would only slightly weather the rocks and would do a minor shuffling of loose unconsolidated sediments. It certainly would not be enough to form miles of sedimentary layers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2012 6:17 PM Tangle has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 311 of 409 (680712)
11-20-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by foreveryoung
11-20-2012 5:40 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi foreveryoung,
Given a steep enough slope, a mudslide will occur once the soil reaches saturation. The subsoil usually has a low water permeability and so it will not slide. However, if water can make its way past the subsoil and penetrate in the saprolite, there will be a landslide if the saprolite is saturated with water and the slope is steep enough.
Agreed, however such conditions do not occur everywhere whenever it rains
The main point is that mudslides in specific are not mentioned in the bible account.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by foreveryoung, posted 11-20-2012 5:40 PM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 312 of 409 (680714)
11-20-2012 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tangle
11-20-2012 6:17 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
No, Tangle, I was not thinking that rocks would dissolve, never said anything to imply that as far as I know so I don't know where the idea came from.
The context of the quote you give was my comment that I think layers of the Grand Canyon would re-dissolve if the Flood repeated itself. It was an afterthoght.
The main thing I said was that the land mass would have been the source of the sediments and what I was thinking of is what would happen NOW if it rained forty days and nights and the ocean covered the land area. I envision a prodigious amount of dissolved stuff, starting with mud, mud and more mud. Not rock, dissolved stuff, loose enough stuff to dissolve.
I have thought that some rock would be pulverized by tumbling in the Flood and also become sediment, but that is again more of an afterthought.
Again the main idea involves envisioning what would happen if the entire world NOW were rained on for forty nights and days and then covered with water for months.
Not the paltry effects so many here seem to insist on despite all the evidence of the enormous destruction that occurs even in local floods.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tangle, posted 11-20-2012 6:17 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2012 9:43 PM Faith has replied
 Message 315 by Boof, posted 11-20-2012 10:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 351 by Percy, posted 11-21-2012 8:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 313 of 409 (680719)
11-20-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
11-20-2012 8:56 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Perhaps the word you are looking for is not "dissolve" but "(soil) liquification?"
Dissolve: to cause to pass into solution, e.g. dissolve sugar in water.
Soil liquefaction describes a phenomenon whereby a saturated soil substantially loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquake shaking or other sudden change in stress condition, causing it to behave like a liquid.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 8:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:13 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 314 of 409 (680722)
11-20-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by Coyote
11-20-2012 9:43 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
It’s an ordinary English word that says well enough what I mean; there’s no need to insist on a particular technical meaning of it.
Dictionary definitions that apply to my use of the word (they even include the meaning "liquefy" you seem to think should require another word):
Dissolve Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
DISSOLVE
transitive verb
b : to separate into component parts : disintegrate
2a : to cause to pass into solution
b : melt, liquefy
intransitive verb
1a : to become dissipated or decomposed
b : break up, disperse
2a : to become fluid : melt
b : to pass into solution
Origin of DISSOLVE
Middle English, from Latin dissolvere, from dis- + solvere to loosen
Synonyms: dematerialize, disappear, evanesce, evaporate, fade, flee, fly, go (away), melt, sink, vanish
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2012 9:43 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Coyote, posted 11-21-2012 12:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(1)
Message 315 of 409 (680725)
11-20-2012 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
11-20-2012 8:56 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Faith writes:
Not the paltry effects so many here seem to insist on despite all the evidence of the enormous destruction that occurs even in local floods.
&
There's no reason to believe the Flood was violent in itself
Not if the flood was magical anyway.
But while I'm here could you please respond to message 273. I am really interested to learn more about the "ENTIRE Geological column". You must have referred to it a dozen times on this thread, amd you claim it was entirely created by the flood, but I can't find any information on it. Please help.
Edited by Boof, : Link pointing to wrong message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 8:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 10:53 PM Boof 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