Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 3:08 AM
25 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,109 Year: 9,145/19,786 Month: 1,567/2,119 Week: 327/576 Day: 2/128 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   How do scientists explain the cause of the Ice Age(s)?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6271
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 76 of 96 (606785)
02-28-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2011 5:54 AM


excavated?
It's widely accepted that the Med was filled by a breach of the Straits of Gibraltar, but not that the Mediterranean basin was excavated by the water in question. How would that even work?

And I would like to know where all the material that was excavated went. It must have gone somewhere. There are lots of other issues with this scenario too. I wonder if Robert has thought any of them through.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:02 PM Theodoric has responded
 Message 85 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:39 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 77 of 96 (606791)
02-28-2011 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Theodoric
02-28-2011 11:31 AM


Re: excavated?
Look into the Zanclean flood theory. It says that the med was filled gradually over several months up too 2 years about 5.33 million years ago Now as I understand it wasn't the first time the med had water though, just the last time it was filled. Wiki has links you can check out and see what you think. Also you can look into the geology of the med and how it was thought to be formed and when.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 11:31 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 12:14 PM fearandloathing has responded
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 12:20 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6271
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 78 of 96 (606797)
02-28-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by fearandloathing
02-28-2011 12:02 PM


Re: excavated?
I am familiar with those theories of the filling of the Med and the black sea. My confusion is to Roberts contention that the Med was excavated by a huge flood.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:02 PM fearandloathing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:43 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 81 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:43 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 79 of 96 (606801)
02-28-2011 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by fearandloathing
02-28-2011 12:02 PM


Re: excavated?
Look into the Zanclean flood theory.

What R.B. said was that: "the Med sea was carved out by fast flowing water into it" (my emphasis). Which is a different kettle of fish entirely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by fearandloathing, posted 02-28-2011 12:02 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 80 of 96 (606807)
02-28-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
02-28-2011 12:14 PM


Re: excavated?
Yes I understand you do. sorry I guess I was trying to provide this theory to support what you were saying. I guess I should ve replied to original statement about fast flowing water. I am still learning how to utilize this site effectively, sorry for any confusion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 12:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 81 of 96 (606808)
02-28-2011 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Theodoric
02-28-2011 12:14 PM


Re: excavated?
Yes I understand you do. sorry I guess I was trying to provide this theory to support what you were saying. I guess I should ve replied to original statement about fast flowing water. I am still learning how to utilize this site effectively, sorry for any confusion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 12:14 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2355 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 82 of 96 (606811)
02-28-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Robert Byers
02-28-2011 5:34 AM


When ever it came in the BC it still was a excavation of the land that created the Med sea. Before it was dry land which allowed rapid animal migration. in fact they find concentrations of creatures, post flood, killed and collected in some islands showing they were overthrown by this event.

Evidence please.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2310 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 83 of 96 (606819)
02-28-2011 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Robert Byers
02-28-2011 5:36 AM


Robert Byers writes:

its a common mention in books dealing with the origin of the Med sea.
Not creationist material.

What books? Please cite at least a few verifiable source for your claim that it is common. Why don't you read a little on the geology of the med. Take the time to skim over material from several sources and let me know where you find anything to support what you say is common. You will see the med has had water prior to 12 million years ago and dried up until 5 million years ago, or are those dates too old and therefore irrelevant lies that science teaches us??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Robert Byers, posted 02-28-2011 5:36 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 84 of 96 (607309)
03-03-2011 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dr Adequate
02-28-2011 5:54 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

its a common mention in books dealing with the origin of the Med sea.

No it isn't.

It's widely accepted that the Med was filled by a breach of the Straits of Gibraltar, but not that the Mediterranean basin was excavated by the water in question. How would that even work?

They do talk anout great canyons and other evidence on the floor showing powerful moving water.
anyways it would be from some carving and then possibly some infilling from other events.
Let its the new big thing about the origin of the med.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-28-2011 5:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


(1)
Message 85 of 96 (607310)
03-03-2011 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Theodoric
02-28-2011 11:31 AM


Re: excavated?
The material would be the origin of the areas in North africa. in fact the material for the pyramids. I imagine water carving out a basin and depositing material on the sides and then some infilling from the mts in europe filling it in again. The origin for fossil life above the k-t line north and south of the Med is from this event as i see iot and it fits biblical boundaries.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Theodoric, posted 02-28-2011 11:31 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:46 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 96 (607320)
03-03-2011 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:35 AM


They do talk anout great canyons and other evidence on the floor showing powerful moving water.

And they say that these canyons correspond to rivers which drained into the basin while it was a desert.

And no-one (well, no geologist, I can't speak for the creationists, who might say anything) says that the basin as a whole was produced by the breach of the straits. It had to be there already, as proved by drilling and indeed by common sense, since the Atlantic had to have something to flow into.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:35 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 87 of 96 (607321)
03-03-2011 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Robert Byers
03-03-2011 3:39 AM


Re: excavated?
The material would be the origin of the areas in North africa. in fact the material for the pyramids. I imagine water carving out a basin and depositing material on the sides ...

* sigh *

Water washes sediment down, not up.

And it flows down, not up. The Atlantic could rapidly pour into the Mediterranean Basin only because there was a Mediterranean Basin.

You creationists seem to employ water like a bulldozer, as though it could push anything anywhere you wanted it. You want it to shovel sediment out of the ground here, dump it over there --- but it's water, dammit, it obeys various laws of physics rather than your whims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Robert Byers, posted 03-03-2011 3:39 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2011 10:43 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6271
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 88 of 96 (607364)
03-03-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 5:46 AM


Re: excavated?
Robert will respond with the creationist catchall.
Godidit


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:46 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2533 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 89 of 96 (607965)
03-08-2011 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 5:42 AM


Dr Adequate writes:

They do talk anout great canyons and other evidence on the floor showing powerful moving water.

And they say that these canyons correspond to rivers which drained into the basin while it was a desert.

And no-one (well, no geologist, I can't speak for the creationists, who might say anything) says that the basin as a whole was produced by the breach of the straits. It had to be there already, as proved by drilling and indeed by common sense, since the Atlantic had to have something to flow into.

its new ideas that water flooded into the area in a big way and anyways it filled the area up with water.
It simply was so powerful it lowered the basin and threw the sediment on top of the boundaries.
The great fossil assemblages on all sides i see as from this short event about a century or two after the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 5:42 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-08-2011 12:04 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 12:10 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-08-2011 12:30 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 96 (608042)
03-08-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Robert Byers
03-08-2011 4:50 AM


its new ideas that water flooded into the area in a big way and anyways it filled the area up with water.

New? The phrase "Zanclean flood" is two years older than I am.

It simply was so powerful it lowered the basin and threw the sediment on top of the boundaries.
The great fossil assemblages on all sides i see as from this short event about a century or two after the flood.

Again I would point out that water is not a bulldozer. It can't push things hither and thither just because you want it to. Nor does it need to. All the geological evidence shows that the Mediterranean is a perfectly ordinary ocean, like the Atlantic, with which it is contiguous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Robert Byers, posted 03-08-2011 4:50 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019