Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
27 online now:
Diomedes, GDR, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), vimesey (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,874 Year: 16,910/19,786 Month: 1,035/2,598 Week: 281/251 Day: 9/43 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ¿Can you believe in an old earth and a global flood?
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 31 of 47 (475705)
07-17-2008 3:49 PM


Thanks for the welcome and sorry for the all caps, good suggestion.

Yes there is a chance I can have my work previewed. Along with the book I hope to have a website. There is quite a bit of information/graphics so it will take a lot of time to compile, but I'm working on it.

A few things the book will cover include volcanism, mountain and canyon formation, rivers that defy logic, lakes that should not exist, massive erosion/runoff patterns, etc. along with the re-population of the earth by Noah's 3 sons.

Thanks again for the comments and maybe this there should be another thread for this discussion.


Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 07-17-2008 4:27 PM Architect-426 has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 32 of 47 (475710)
07-17-2008 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Architect-426
07-17-2008 3:49 PM


Select Topics
It maybe that some of your topics require too much material to present easily here.

However, some topics might fit well. Since you now that attempts to prove the recent global flood have been made before you have two possibilities:

1) you have some errors in your facts or logic. Before you invest too much you might want to get all the checking from others that you can.

2) you are a once in a century genius that has managed to see what tens of thousands haven't seen before.

I hope there is no offense when I suggest that the former is orders of magnitude more likely than the latter. Maybe you should get feedback as soon as you can.

I'd be interested, for example, in a few rivers that defy logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Architect-426, posted 07-17-2008 3:49 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2008 11:50 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM AdminNosy has responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 47 (475803)
07-18-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by AdminNosy
07-17-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Select Topics
I'd be interested, for example, in a few rivers that defy logic.

There's the Nonsequitur River, which comes out of nowhere ... the Petitioprincipii, which is its own source ... the Oxymoron, which flows in both directions at once ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 07-17-2008 4:27 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 34 of 47 (476149)
07-21-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by AdminNosy
07-17-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Select Topics
The information would be too large to present here but we can still discuss various topics in the forum. There is always the potential for errors in facts and logic so there needs to be research done and even experiments, no doubt, good advice. I firmly believe in researching information thoroughly before putting it on paper as fact. Genius? well my wife may have something to say about that. Do I see things differently and apply critical thinking? You bet, thats what I am trained and paid to do.

I look at geography and see that the current shape of the world we live in is a result of a huge catastrophic event that occurred as a chain reaction, world wide. And no, the continents did not break apart and "crash" into each other like a demolition derby that science has always taught with the plate tectonic theory. Furthermore it did not take a "million-billion" years. I'll explain it thoroughly in my book.

Onto some more interesting rivers that defy logic:
Columbia River
Susquehana
New River in NC, VA.
Finke River Australia.
Yangzi River, China.

There are many many more but these rivers are similar.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by AdminNosy, posted 07-17-2008 4:27 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2008 3:59 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2008 4:08 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by AdminNosy, posted 07-21-2008 4:11 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2008 7:52 PM Architect-426 has responded
 Message 44 by rueh, posted 07-22-2008 11:17 AM Architect-426 has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 35 of 47 (476155)
07-21-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Select Topics
And no, the continents did not break apart and "crash" into each other like a demolition derby that science has always taught with the plate tectonic theory.

"Always" is, in this case, approximately the amount of time since I graduated from high school, Arch. Plate tectonics is quite a new approach: science works like that. New data (ocean-floor magnetic striping) found with new instruments made the idea of plates moving as fast as your fingernails grow possible.

And if you can build the Himalayas in less than 10,000,000 years, I'll eat my hat and yours, too.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 47 (476158)
07-21-2008 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Select Topics
I'll explain it thoroughly in my book.

Why don't you pick a topic and explain it thoroughly here?

We could provide some commentary and perhaps criticism.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 37 of 47 (476159)
07-21-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 3:05 PM


illogical rivers
Please create a separate topic and explain why these rivers are illogical (or interesting even).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 38 of 47 (476185)
07-21-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 3:05 PM


Illogical rivers
ARCHITECT-426 writes:

Onto some more interesting rivers that defy logic:
Columbia River
Susquehana
New River in NC, VA.
Finke River Australia.
Yangzi River, China.

I notice that you say more interesting rivers that defy logic. Do you mean more in addition to the ones that Dr. Adequate mentioned? :o

Genius? well my wife may have something to say about that. Do I see things differently.....?

I think you probably do....

I must say, I'm looking forward to the thread on rivers that defy logic. It will make a welcome change from threads on floods that defy logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 10:16 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 47 (476193)
07-21-2008 9:26 PM


Illogical Rivers

Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 40 of 47 (476201)
07-21-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bluegenes
07-21-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Illogical rivers
Take a look at the Susquehana; north of Harrisburg and note how it chose to flow through mountain ranges instead of around them. The other rivers do the same trick. Does anyone have any explanations?

By the way I got a good chuckle out of Dr. Adequate's rivers. Its always good to keep a sense of humor around this subject of God flooding the earth and wiping out mankind and everything else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bluegenes, posted 07-21-2008 7:52 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 07-21-2008 11:04 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 1:22 AM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 43 by The Matt, posted 07-22-2008 7:28 AM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 366 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 41 of 47 (476205)
07-21-2008 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Illogical rivers, discredited flood
Its always good to keep a sense of humor around this subject of God flooding the earth and wiping out mankind and everything else.

Particularly since there is no scientific evidence that such a flood ever happened.

This is off topic here, but start a thread if you think you have evidence of a global flood at the appointed time (ca. 4350 years ago).

I have some evidence from my own research I'll throw in for free.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 10:16 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16104
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 42 of 47 (476214)
07-22-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Illogical rivers
Take a look at the Susquehana; north of Harrisburg and note how it chose to flow through mountain ranges instead of around them. The other rivers do the same trick. Does anyone have any explanations?

I would attribute that chiefly, indeed exclusively, to the fact that rivers follow the line of least resistance from their origin to their destination. If you feel that it would be more "logical" for the Susquehanna to get up out of its bed and go around the mountains, feel free to explain that to the Susquehanna. But I'm afraid that that illogical old river might go on following the laws of hydrodynamics all the same.

By the way I got a good chuckle out of Dr. Adequate's rivers. Its always good to keep a sense of humor around this subject of God flooding the earth and wiping out mankind and everything else.

I was, of course, laughing at your quaint phrase about "rivers that defy logic", and I never mentioned the Flood in any way whatsoever.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 10:16 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

The Matt
Member (Idle past 3801 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 43 of 47 (476223)
07-22-2008 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Illogical rivers
Take a look at the Susquehana; north of Harrisburg and note how it chose to flow through mountain ranges instead of around them. The other rivers do the same trick. Does anyone have any explanations?

I don't know the river you're talking about, so I can't deal in specifics here, but here's one possible explanation. Maybe the river system predates the mountains. If a pre-existing river can downcut faster than a mountain range can rise, it will carry on through.

Another explanation is headwater erosion and stream capture.

At the top, there's a plain with a river system flowing west. South of that is a mountain range, and south of the mountains is a plain lower than the northernmost one. A river developed on the mountains and cut a valley backwards until it reached the northern plain. Eventually it breaches the channel of the northern river, which then follows the new path of least resistance southwards, leaving part of it's old course dry.

I don't really see what's illogical about this.
What's your explanation then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 10:16 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 44 of 47 (476260)
07-22-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Architect-426
07-21-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Susquehana
Seems highly unlikely that you have Geological evidence to despute all of plate tetonics when simple erosion and hyrdrodynamics is to much for you to research. Here is the simplest explanation for what you see.
Susquehanna River or Evidence for drainage displacement by sea-level fluctuation from the inner continental shelf, Virginia (the second is not available electronically)

Geologically, the river is extremely ancient, often regarded as the oldest or second oldest major system in the world.[citation needed] It is far older than the mountain ridges through which it turns, most of which were formed in uplift events of the early Cenozoic era

Edited by rueh, : missing link

Edited by rueh, : More evidence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Architect-426, posted 07-21-2008 3:05 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Architect-426, posted 07-22-2008 7:53 PM rueh has not yet responded

Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2882 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 45 of 47 (476310)
07-22-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by rueh
07-22-2008 11:17 AM


Re: Susquehana
It seems we have two thoughts going:

1. The river was always there and the mountain ranges decided to stop at the river bed, then continue on the other side (assuming the river eroded them down as they rose).
2. The mountains were there first and then the river cuts through the hard rock at 90 d. without a blink.

So which was first, the river or the mountains? (this logic would also apply to the thousands of rivers in the world that do the exact same thing).

If the rivers were always present before mountain ranges, then were they as large assuming the world was relatively flat? (thus the velocity of the rivers would be much lower than they are with the mountainous terrain). Furthermore if the rivers were always in place ignoring mountain building, then why do they rise with the landscape of the mountains instead of staying at their original elevation???

Assume, just for one moment, that plate tectonics had little to do with mountain building. Then what other major force could there have been to create them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by rueh, posted 07-22-2008 11:17 AM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 8:31 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019