Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did the Flood really happen?
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1251 of 2370 (860960)
08-14-2019 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1249 by Faith
08-14-2019 1:06 PM


Re: Green River Varve timing -- update
Don't bother if all you have is unsupported fantasies. That is, don't just repeat what you have posted already.
You won't come up with anything other than pipe dreams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1249 by Faith, posted 08-14-2019 1:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1252 of 2370 (860962)
08-14-2019 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1245 by Faith
08-14-2019 12:34 PM


Re: Green River Varve timing -- update

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1245 by Faith, posted 08-14-2019 12:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1255 by Faith, posted 08-14-2019 8:36 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1253 of 2370 (860964)
08-14-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1248 by Faith
08-14-2019 1:05 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Let me know when you have an independent source of information from any ancient time period to verify this method of dating.
Since you don't know anything about the many different processes involved in radioactive decay or how the many different and independent methods of radiometric dating work, it's pointless to explain why the methods verify each other.
Ar-Ar dating measured the date of the Vesuvius eruption in 79 AD. Since the laws of physics haven't changed that's verification for all time.
Of course carbon dating agrees with Lake Suigetsu varves, Cariaco Basin varves, and Fairbanks corals, none of which involve radioactivity. They all agree back to 50,000 years ago.
And of course there's Message 555.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1248 by Faith, posted 08-14-2019 1:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1254 by Faith, posted 08-14-2019 8:13 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1258 of 2370 (868287)
12-10-2019 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1257 by Faith
12-09-2019 3:14 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Yeah, I don't care about making my views match with all the scientific claims
Or with reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1257 by Faith, posted 12-09-2019 3:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1259 by Faith, posted 12-10-2019 11:06 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1262 of 2370 (868297)
12-10-2019 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1259 by Faith
12-10-2019 11:06 AM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
The age of the Earth and life is solidly settled science, not conjecture. Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong in many particulars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1259 by Faith, posted 12-10-2019 11:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1265 of 2370 (868375)
12-11-2019 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1264 by Faith
12-11-2019 12:38 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Well, it ain't wrong. Therefore it fits and your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
You've claimed infallibility many times. You're fallible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1264 by Faith, posted 12-11-2019 12:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by Faith, posted 12-11-2019 1:01 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1269 of 2370 (868379)
12-11-2019 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1266 by Faith
12-11-2019 1:01 PM


Re: Basics Faith, basics.
Nope, Bible's infallible, not me.
So you admit your interpretation is fallible. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1266 by Faith, posted 12-11-2019 1:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1391 of 2370 (868976)
12-20-2019 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1390 by Faith
12-20-2019 5:39 PM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
Rivers underground carve out very different channels than rivers on the surface do.
It's trivial to tell the difference.
Typical underground:
Buried rivers:
Current surface rivers:
Note the branching pattern. The second two have similar structures, the buried rivers were once surface rivers. The first is an obvious odd-man-out and has always been underground.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1390 by Faith, posted 12-20-2019 5:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1392 by Faith, posted 12-20-2019 7:04 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 1396 by Faith, posted 12-21-2019 5:06 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1398 of 2370 (869010)
12-21-2019 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1396 by Faith
12-21-2019 5:06 PM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
It's trivial to tell the difference between a buried surface river and an underground river. The former shows a tree-like branching pattern, the latter has few branches.
We know this by looking at surface rivers and underground rivers today and understanding the physics of flowing water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1396 by Faith, posted 12-21-2019 5:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1401 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 8:19 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1399 of 2370 (869011)
12-21-2019 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1396 by Faith
12-21-2019 5:06 PM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
Dupe
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1396 by Faith, posted 12-21-2019 5:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1403 of 2370 (869038)
12-22-2019 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1401 by Faith
12-22-2019 8:19 AM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
In both cases it would have branches.
The context is your claim that buried surface rivers are really rivers that were always underground.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1401 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 8:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1404 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:18 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1412 of 2370 (869057)
12-22-2019 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by Faith
12-22-2019 11:18 AM


Re: silly all one type of rock nonsense.
can't think in terms of buried surface rivers. I can't figure out how to explain them in relation to the Flood.
Nobody can. It can't be done. It takes time to cut river channels, even in soft sediment. It can't happen underwater.
Buried surface rivers look nothing like underground rivers.
There was no global fludde.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:18 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1413 of 2370 (869058)
12-22-2019 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1406 by Faith
12-22-2019 11:50 AM


Re: again Faith is asserting the impossible
It's a channel more or less shaped like a riverbed
It's a channel not at all shaped like a surface river.
Surface rivers have extensive tree-like branching patterns. Channels formed underground have very few or no branches, and they aren't tree-like.
Buried surface rivers are trivial to identify.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by Faith, posted 12-22-2019 11:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1530 of 2370 (869515)
12-31-2019 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1522 by Faith
12-31-2019 1:17 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
a one time event is pretty much the definition of nonrepeatability observations
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1522 by Faith, posted 12-31-2019 1:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 1549 of 2370 (869595)
01-02-2020 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1545 by Faith
01-02-2020 1:46 PM


Re: Moving post about the prehistoric geological past
Maybe if you say it 100 times more it will become true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1545 by Faith, posted 01-02-2020 1:46 PM Faith 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