Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mt. Saint Helens now has it's own topic!
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 46 of 68 (18765)
10-01-2002 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:07 PM


[QUOTE][B]I know that I was created by God, and nothing you say (without irrefutable proof) will change my mind. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
That's fine but don't go around claiming you have evidence to back up your position if you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:07 PM akakscase has not replied

akakscase
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 68 (18767)
10-01-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by gene90
10-01-2002 7:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]the geologic collum as you see in text books does not appear anywhere on earth.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I've seen that proven wrong here about a dozen times but even if it were true that there is no complete geologic collumn it is because there are unconformities. The geologic record is not to be expected to found in one place, it is generated by correlating rock units around the world.
[QUOTE][B]Fossil age has been disproven through "fossil graveyards" when dinosaur bones from several million years difference have benn found together, sometimes mixed together.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Cite. And tell me, why weren't modern mammal bones found in the mix, if the world is as young as you claim?
[QUOTE][B]
From a geologic (ancient earth) point of view the canyon is a marvel of nature. It is also impossible. There are almost no signs of erosion anywhere on it. The only possible explanation for it is a MASSIVE shift in the earth that cracked two mountains apart, completely through. There is also no evidence of this.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No evidence, or you weren't able to find any evidence? This is a good point for you to share your credentials with your eager audience.
[QUOTE][B]To get those formations the river would have had to shift places HUNDREDS of times. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Which is what one would expect with an old Earth. And, rivers are constantly meandering.
[QUOTE][B]The Grand Canyon would not have withstood the numerous earthquakes (by nature of the strata it cuts through)[/QUOTE]
[/B]
What earthquakes?
[QUOTE][B]The long term formation of the grand canyon is impossible because in a fairly large portion of it the ground is HIGHER than the headwaters of the river that formed it. This means for a while water had to flow uphill in order to carve the canyon. And I'm not just talking about a couple of feet, I'm talk many many many feet.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No, you're talking about many kilometers. However, the whole Kaibab Plateau has been uplifting very slowly since the canyon began to form. In the Old Earth model, the river never had to flow 'up'. How you deal with that in a young Earth model, I don't know. Plus, you already pointed out that the giant earthquakes necessary in a young Earth model would leave voluminous evidence, if not seriously altering the canyon, pretty much destroys the YEC perspective as well as I could on my own.
Also, near the GC is Bryce Canyon. As you can see by the vertical rock structures in that picture (Hoodoos) erosion was not from lateral movement of water, it was from vertical movement from above, that is, eons of rainfall.
Bryce Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

I just love how you take one or two things out of context to attack it. Try using the whole thing next time. Now to answer you questions:
1) The geologic collumn I am refering to is the complete geologic collumn. First off... Unconformities doesn't explain it. If it doesn't exist don't use it as proof for aging other collumns.
2) Cited: Bone graveyards (note the s) in the Badlands. Next, only the largest and most durable bones survived intact. There are many fragments found in these graveyards from much smaller and less durable bones. Who's to say that some of those may not be mammilian. (I'm not using this as proof though, it is just a hypothesis)
3) The evidence of erosion is plain to see to the trained eye which mine is (Masters in Geology, UAF, specializing in natural resource exploration). Next the evidence of a massive shift in the earth would be shown with sharper peaks on the mountains, massive landslides, and, somewhere nearby, evidence of upthrust earth.
4) The shifts would have had to have been drastic over short periods of time, and the river remained on the same course afterwards for extended periods of time. Thus earthquakes or vocanice action (which is extremely easy to disprove) would be the only answer to.
5) See answer 4
Now as to what you said afterwards:
I use feet so that the common every day American has a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. OK, First lets use the OEM and say it was flat at first, then the upthrusting began very slowly. This would be a fairly good cuase of the Grand Canyon. But lets talk basic geophysics. It the plateau slowly thrust upward, where are the stress fractures? There would be stress fratures all over the place. Try this very easy very basic experiment at home:
1) get a plastic party plate
2) make a thick paste with corstarch and water (enough to fill the plate)
3) fill plate and let dry (aproximately 24 hours for mine)
4) gently push up from the bottom of the plate using finger.
What happens? You get all sorts of fractures and fissures all over the place of the upthrusting. THERE IS NONE ANYWHERE NEAR the Grand Canyon. If you observed closely you noticed that you could lift the starch a little bit without the fractures. This is why a 4500 year old plateau dosn't have the fractures. It hasn't pushed up enough yet.
Now the YEM:
Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans. Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water. Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit. (Did you know that extremely cold ice (like that you would find in a mid orbit) is magnetic?) The world would therefore be full of small geothermic springs and the orbiting ice would keep the world warm (Ice/snow is the best insulater known). Then something tragic happened and the world (which was probably orbiting at a 90 degree and to the sun) got tilted. The Magnetic poles were thrown off and all the ice that was in orbit almost litterally got sucked to earth by the shifted magnetic poles. It would melt as it entered the atmosphere and become rain. Meanwhile as the world tilts several thins happened. First the surface of the world would shift and fracture, realeasing all that geothermally heated water into the air and shallow seas (killing anything around it). The steam would turn to clouds as it rapidly cooled and surface temperature would drop radically. The part (most likely the north pole) that pointed away from the sun would quickly drop below freezing and snow would start falling by the yard (which is why you find standing mammoths frozen in ice). You would quickly have a disaster that would change the face of the planet. After all this water was released from beneath the crust the crust would cave in, and form the modern day oceans. That is where all the water went. Very little of it evaporated. Now, the sinking crust would sink very rapidly, and thus the water (which had been having extraordinary tides which cause the layered strata) would rush toward the oceans. Now here is how the Grand Canyon would be formed be this: The water ran downhill and as it lowered it started carving away the top of the plateau. Then once it reached the level of the pleateau the water would begin to run in the lower channels (early Grand Canyon) and carve the then soft sediment rapidly. Pretty soon that channel would be pretty deep, and as the water behind it diminished it would reduce itsself to a small water channel in a deep canyon like what you see today. The Higher ground only increased the ammount of soft soil erosion, and never once did the water flow up hill. Now there is more to this theory which I will post later. But right now, I'm going to get some dinner. (BTW You can thank Kent Hovind for this theory)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by gene90, posted 10-01-2002 7:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by gene90, posted 10-01-2002 10:11 PM akakscase has not replied
 Message 50 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2002 12:15 AM akakscase has not replied
 Message 51 by edge, posted 10-02-2002 1:28 AM akakscase has not replied
 Message 52 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 1:57 AM akakscase has not replied
 Message 56 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 6:24 PM akakscase has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 48 of 68 (18769)
10-01-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by akakscase
10-01-2002 6:45 PM


akakscase, in message 42:
quote:
the geologic collum as you see in text books does not appear anywhere on earth.
Gene, in message 44:
quote:
The geologic record is not to be expected to found in one place, it is generated by correlating rock units around the world.
You're both right. The most basic geologic column, that so often in text books, is a most generalized time line, outlining the divisions and durations of the most fundimental units of geologic history. Other variations of this time line can also be found; They divide things with much more detail.
As you get deeper into the study of geology, you will encounter other geologic columns, more specific to a more restricted area, but still quite generalized.
Untimately, you can have a geologic column that is specific to one precise location. These might be divided into extreme detail. Maybe the column might focus in on a few inch thickness of rock, or even less.
Regardless of the scale and degree of detail, the geologic column (book form) is just an on paper generalization of the real world.
akakscase again:
quote:
The long term formation of the grand canyon is impossible because in a fairly large portion of it the ground is HIGHER than the headwaters of the river that formed it.
The are abundant examples of rivers cutting through ground much higher that their source elevation. Perhaps fault action helped open a path for the river. Or perhaps the path of the river was already established, and it continued to cut down, as the land tectonicly rose. The Grand Canyon is probably an illustration of the results of both of these effects (and others).
Moose
Added by edit: It's probably obvious that I was so cranked up to do a posting, that I skimmed Gene's #44 pretty fast. I must commend him of the quality of his message. Mine is largely inferior and redundant.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 6:45 PM akakscase has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 49 of 68 (18773)
10-01-2002 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:57 PM


[QUOTE][B]If it doesn't exist don't use it as proof for aging other collumns.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
It does exist, it is the sum total of the world's geologic columns.
[QUOTE][B]Cited: Bone graveyards (note the s) in the Badlands. Next, only the largest and most durable bones survived intact. There are many fragments found in these graveyards from much smaller and less durable bones. Who's to say that some of those may not be mammilian./[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Cite a journal reference to modern mammalian bones found amongst the dinosaur bones.
[QUOTE][B]Next the evidence of a massive shift in the earth would be shown with sharper peaks on the mountains, massive landslides, and, somewhere nearby, evidence of upthrust earth.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Therefore there were no catastrophic shifts of Earth (or global floods) near where you live anytime recently. You discredit your own position.
[QUOTE][B]Thus earthquakes or vocanice action (which is extremely easy to disprove) would be the only answer to.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't know where you are going with this but did you just imply there was no volcanic action associated with the Grand Canyon?
[QUOTE][B] It the plateau slowly thrust upward, where are the stress fractures?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
All over the place.
Web resource:
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/...tudents/s97/goebel/webdoc1.htm
Hits from GeoRef:
Reverse-drag folding across the path of the antecedent early Pliocene Colorado River below the mouth of the Grand Canyon; implications for plateau uplift, Howard, K. A. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 2000, Vol. 32, Issue 7, pp.41
Uplift and erosion of the Colorado Plateau and Grand Canyon; implications of new calculations of large-scale rock uplift, exhumation, and river incision, Pederson, Joel L. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, April 2002, Vol. 34, Issue 4, pp.60
Displacement rates on the Toroweap and Hurricane faults; implications for Quaternary downcutting in the Grand Canyon, Arizona, Fenton, Cassandra R. In: Geology Boulder, November 2001, Vol. 29, Issue 11, pp.1035-1038
Cretaceous-Tertiary uplift of the Southwest Colorado Plateau, Young, R. A. In: Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 1996, Vol. 28, Issue 7, pp.514
There are a total of 55 hits.
[QUOTE][B]There would be stress fratures all over the place.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Like we see there today.
[QUOTE][B]Try this very easy very basic experiment at home:[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I'm literate in basic geology.
[QUOTE][B]Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Evidence?
[QUOTE][B]Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
You mean the Mohorovicik Discontinuity was bathed in liquid water? What about the geothermal gradient? That's not physically possible.
[QUOTE][B]Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
What held it there? What kept it from sublimating away? Why didn't it block all light from reaching Earth?
[QUOTE][B](Did you know that extremely cold ice (like that you would find in a mid orbit) is magnetic?)[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't believe that but if it were it would be a nightmare for the YEC model because magnetic braking would occur between the sphere and the Earth.
[QUOTE][B] The world would therefore be full of small geothermic springs and the orbiting ice would keep the world warm (Ice/snow is the best insulater known).[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Where's the light coming from?
[QUOTE][B]Then something tragic happened and the world (which was probably orbiting at a 90 degree and to the sun) got tilted.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
How? Where's the evidence for that?
[QUOTE][B]The steam would turn to clouds as it rapidly cooled and surface temperature would drop radically. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually the surface would be incinerated as the latent heat of condensation was released, to the tune of 600 calories/gm of water.
[QUOTE][B]The part (most likely the north pole) that pointed away from the sun would quickly drop below freezing and snow would start falling by the yard (which is why you find standing mammoths frozen in ice).[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Wouldn't we be finding dinosaurs frozen too?
[QUOTE][B]You would quickly have a disaster that would change the face of the planet. After all this water was released from beneath the crust the crust would cave in, and form the modern day oceans. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
That doesn't begin to explain the most obvious aspect of the geology of the ocean basins, that they are covered with basalt as opposed to the more felsic continents.
[QUOTE][B]The water ran downhill [/QUOTE]
[/B]
When did those fossil coral reefs have time to form in Texas?
When did the water calm enough for fine-grained sediments to settle out, producing things like the Selma Formation in the US Gulf Coastal Plain, or the chalk cliffs of Dover? Where are the giant graded beds hundreds of meters thick that we should find?
[QUOTE][B]Then once it reached the level of the pleateau the water would begin to run in the lower channels (early Grand Canyon) and carve the then soft sediment rapidly. Pretty soon that channel would be pretty deep, and as the water behind it diminished it would reduce itsself to a small water channel in a deep canyon like what you see today.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Large volumes of flowing water do not carve deep and narrow channels, they spread out over hundreds of square kilometers and produce landforms like the Scablands of Washington and some of the Martian terrain. Small volumes of water acting over very long periods of time in resistant terrain carve deep and narrow channels. You can simulate this in a sandbox if you feel like you need to but I think it's quite obvious and we do have a few examples of catastrophic flooding on Earth.
[QUOTE][B]You can thank Kent Hovind for this theory[/QUOTE]
[/B]
They let him out of jail?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:57 PM akakscase has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 50 of 68 (18785)
10-02-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:57 PM


akakscase said:
quote:
...the trained eye which mine is (Masters in Geology, UAF, specializing in natural resource exploration).
Wow, we've finally found someone to fill in for Steve McQueen!
Moose
Edit: Oops, make that David McQueen - Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:57 PM akakscase has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 68 (18797)
10-02-2002 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by akakscase:
I just love how you take one or two things out of context to attack it. Try using the whole thing next time. Now to answer you questions:
1) The geologic collumn I am refering to is the complete geologic collumn. First off... Unconformities doesn't explain it. If it doesn't exist don't use it as proof for aging other collumns.
Hmm, AK, can you please give us a reference in which any geologist, anywhere in the world says that the geological column must be complete at any location? I think you will see that this is a strawman argument created by your favorite professional creationists for you to trip over in your crusade against evolution.
quote:
2) Cited: Bone graveyards (note the s) in the Badlands. Next, only the largest and most durable bones survived intact. There are many fragments found in these graveyards from much smaller and less durable bones. Who's to say that some of those may not be mammilian. (I'm not using this as proof though, it is just a hypothesis)
Yeah, well, that's a good thing, because lots of fine bones have been found in the fossil record including fossilized egg shells.
quote:
3) The evidence of erosion is plain to see to the trained eye which mine is (Masters in Geology, UAF, specializing in natural resource exploration).
Oops, I think I just felt the collective shudder of hundreds of UA geologists.
quote:
Next the evidence of a massive shift in the earth would be shown with sharper peaks on the mountains, massive landslides, and, somewhere nearby, evidence of upthrust earth.
You mean sharper than the Alaska Range? Or the Himalayas? What do you mean by sharper? Are you saying that the modern high ranges are not formed by erosion?
quote:
4) The shifts would have had to have been drastic over short periods of time, and the river remained on the same course afterwards for extended periods of time. Thus earthquakes or vocanice action (which is extremely easy to disprove) would be the only answer to.
This makes no sense at all. Why would any shifts have to be drastic?
quote:
Now as to what you said afterwards:
I use feet so that the common every day American has a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about. OK, First lets use the OEM and say it was flat at first, then the upthrusting began very slowly. This would be a fairly good cuase of the Grand Canyon. But lets talk basic geophysics. It the plateau slowly thrust upward, where are the stress fractures?
Umm, AK? Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Why would rapid uplift not create fractures?
quote:
What happens? You get all sorts of fractures and fissures all over the place of the upthrusting. THERE IS NONE ANYWHERE NEAR the Grand Canyon.
Wow! Any pictures I've seen have all kinds of fractures.
quote:
Now the YEM:
Before the flood the earth was relatively flat with VERY shallow oceans.
Have you checked your bible for references to mountains or hills?
quote:
Either in the crust, but most likely between the crust and outer mantle of the earth there was a fairly large pocket of water.
Sure, that makes sense. Super dense water, no doubt.
quote:
Also there was an outer globe of water above the earth in a mid to low orbit.
You sound quite convinced. And your evidence for this is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:57 PM akakscase has not replied

wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 68 (18801)
10-02-2002 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:57 PM


Troll warning:
This fellow claims to have a MS in geology from UAF, which appears to have a pretty decent geology department. There is certainly plenty of interesting geology to study up there. The catalog has a nice selection of classes. Presumably our friend had to take at least a few of the more rigorous courses...
... yet he makes whoppers like this:
quote:
...all the ice that was in orbit almost litterally got sucked to earth by the shifted magnetic poles. It would melt as it entered the atmosphere and become rain.
Haha.
Very funny.
Just to show you how much we have enjoyed your poor impersonation of a fundie charlatan/pseudoscientist, I'll play the straight man and ask you to calculate the energy released by a cubic kilometer of ice falling from low earth orbit.
But that's it...
Seriously now, there are easier ways to make creationists look foolish. This elaborate charade is distracting, and adds nothing to the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:57 PM akakscase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2002 2:14 AM wehappyfew has not replied
 Message 54 by Joe Meert, posted 10-02-2002 6:54 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 53 of 68 (18802)
10-02-2002 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by wehappyfew
10-02-2002 1:57 AM


I was wondering if UAF might be something other that U Fairbanks, Alaska.
The writing syle seem strange, coming from someone with a legit Masters in anything.
Maybe I can sic TC on him.
Hey TC, there an honorary PhD, from Whatsamatta U, in it for you, if you can take care of this guy.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 1:57 AM wehappyfew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 6:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 54 of 68 (18817)
10-02-2002 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by wehappyfew
10-02-2002 1:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wehappyfew:
Troll warning:
This fellow claims to have a MS in geology from UAF, which appears to have a pretty decent geology department. There is certainly plenty of interesting geology to study up there. The catalog has a nice selection of classes. Presumably our friend had to take at least a few of the more rigorous courses...
... yet he makes whoppers like this:
quote:
...all the ice that was in orbit almost litterally got sucked to earth by the shifted magnetic poles. It would melt as it entered the atmosphere and become rain.

JM: Let's be fair, he did say he borrowed this idea from Kent Hovind. Nevertheless, it is quite obvious that if this guy ever did get a MS in geology, he's forgotten most of it. Let's deal with Hovind's comet 'hypothesis'. I've actually corrected his science directly to him, but he still uses it. Water (or ice), as with any substance is magnetic. However, the type of magnetism exhibited by water is diamagnetism which has the characterstic that it opposes any external field. That means that the ice ball would be (if anything) repelled by the magnetic field. Secondly, I asked Kent Hovind just how strong he thought the magnetic field was and I challenged him to take a large electromagnet and hurl an ice ball past it at 30 miles per hour and tell me if the electromagnet pulled it in (since the local magnetic field would be thousands of times greater than the earth's). Then I asked him how a diamagnetic substance hurtling through space at thousands of kph would be pulled in by the Earth's magnetic field. Hovind says 'well i didn't say it was right, i said it was just a theory'. Given this fellows penchant for quoting Hovind, is it any wonder he posts false credentials?
Some cool experiments showing diamagnetism matchrockets.com - This website is for sale! - matchrockets Resources and Information.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 1:57 AM wehappyfew has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 68 (18895)
10-02-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Minnemooseus
10-02-2002 2:14 AM


"Maybe I can sic TC on him."
--I would have had quite a ball fiddling with his parroted sophistry, though I think Meert took the majority of my words away. If he starts gurgling up something along the line of the BB theory being another load of hog-wash from the observed tilt in the rotational axis of Uranus, then I'll be standing by.
--I am surely hoping that he is a laymen, lest he hinder my positive thoughts on the system of education for UAF..
[Edit] - This is the impression I get from the quote wehappyfew supplied from his post.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-02-2002 2:14 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 68 (18896)
10-02-2002 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by akakscase
10-01-2002 8:57 PM


"(BTW You can thank Kent Hovind for this theory)"
--Oh shlap! Son..we need to have a talk..
--If you find it interesting, you can read my summary for Flood mechanics over here, I don't need a PH.D to claim that I am more intelligent than Hovind, it just seems to be a special quality of mine...
http://EvC Forum: Creationist only flood topic? / Young Earth vs. Old Earth id's? Posts #3 & #10
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by akakscase, posted 10-01-2002 8:57 PM akakscase has not replied

akakscase
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 68 (18897)
10-02-2002 6:25 PM


OK, edge it is clear that not only are you firmly rooted in your beliefs of on old earth, but you also will not use a persons WHOLE answer as a quote. (Fragements answer I said was a theory, not fact as you posted it as) Next, The "COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLLUMN" doesn't exist anywhere in this world except text books and imagination. YOU can take all the strata you want and shuffle it any way you want, but you still won't have a complete geologic collumn. Why? Because the strata used for it was pulled from too many places, too far removed from each other to be viable. That's like taking an eskimo skeleton from northern canada and putting a chimpanzees head on it, then calling it the missing link. Think about it for a while.
Next, for all you who are attacking my Masters. I get the masters for one purpose. A job, and that was a long time ago. Next, about 65% of the "geology" I learned at that time was based on evoloution. So I do not use it. Now, I personnaly believe the earth is young (I've never seen irrefutable proof, even in the grand canyon, that it's old). There are too many inconsitencies in current science to even try to use current science to proove it's old. For my part, I believe god created this earth perfect, and then later almost completely destroyed it. And in the near future he will come back, desroy completely and then rebuild the perfect earth again, where only those who believed in and obeyed him will be around to see. This is my last post.
BTW The fratures in edge mentioned, are the wrong type, or part of the canyon itself so I must ask. him. What is it, fracture or erosion. You can't use both feasably and come up with the same answer.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 6:38 PM akakscase has not replied
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 10-02-2002 6:52 PM akakscase has not replied
 Message 63 by edge, posted 10-03-2002 1:07 AM akakscase has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 68 (18898)
10-02-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by akakscase
10-02-2002 6:25 PM


"Next, The "COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLLUMN" doesn't exist anywhere in this world except text books and imagination."
--It exists in an abundance of places across the world. I'd digest that Hovind jargon and run to the can.
"YOU can take all the strata you want and shuffle it any way you want, but you still won't have a complete geologic collumn. Why?"
--Because your primitive experiment is outrageously pathetic when applied to realistic depositional mechanics.
"Because the strata used for it was pulled from too many places, too far removed from each other to be viable."
--You must not have knowledge when it comes to simple rock cycles, sedimentary transport, weathering/erosion, ground water, not to mention the basics of orogeny.
"Next, for all you who are attacking my Masters. I get the masters for one purpose. A job, and that was a long time ago."
--Much emphasis on the 'logn time ago'.
"Next, about 65% of the "geology" I learned at that time was based on evoloution. So I do not use it. "
--That must be why your screwed. Evolution implies development so your at a great loss, it would have been better for you to pay attention, how in the world did you even pass without such fundamental knowledge?
"Now, I personnaly believe the earth is young (I've never seen irrefutable proof, even in the grand canyon, that it's old)."
--I agree with you that the earth is young, however your not looking for 'proof' but composed models knitted from the gathering of data & evidence.
"There are too many inconsitencies in current science to even try to use current science to proove it's old."
--See above, and it is unfortunately evident that you didn't pay attention in class, shame on you.
"This is my last post."
--Oh come now! We promise to play nice.. wouldn't you like to test the veracity of what Hovind has thrown at you? (I know, lets have a private thread, Creationist to Creationist, Christian to Christian, YEC to YEC)
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by akakscase, posted 10-02-2002 6:25 PM akakscase has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 59 of 68 (18902)
10-02-2002 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by akakscase
10-02-2002 6:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by akakscase:
OK, edge it is clear that not only are you firmly rooted in your beliefs of on old earth, but you also will not use a persons WHOLE answer as a quote. (Fragements answer I said was a theory, not fact as you posted it as) Next, The "COMPLETE GEOLOGIC COLLUMN" doesn't exist anywhere in this world except text books and imagination. YOU can take all the strata you want and shuffle it any way you want, but you still won't have a complete geologic collumn. Why? Because the strata used for it was pulled from too many places, too far removed from each other to be viable. That's like taking an eskimo skeleton from northern canada and putting a chimpanzees head on it, then calling it the missing link. Think about it for a while.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
"This article is a detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota. I do this not to disprove the Bible but to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better job of getting the facts straight. "
The complete geologic column has been found in 26 locations:
The Ghadames Basin in Libya
The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
The Adana Basin in Turkey
The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
The Carpathian Basin in Poland
The Baltic Basin in the USSR
The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
The Jiuxi Basin China
The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
The Tarim Basin China
The Szechwan Basin China
The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
The Williston Basin in North Dakota
The Tampico Embayment Mexico
The Bogata Basin Colombia
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
(Crediting wj for the above info)
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by akakscase, posted 10-02-2002 6:25 PM akakscase has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by TrueCreation, posted 10-02-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 61 by wj, posted 10-02-2002 9:33 PM mark24 has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 68 (18908)
10-02-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mark24
10-02-2002 6:52 PM


Exactly Mark
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mark24, posted 10-02-2002 6:52 PM mark24 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