Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Huge Rocks Transported Long Distances
81 views
Skip to first unread message
curtjester1
Apr 23, 2012, 3:53:23 PM4/23/12
to
From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
example.
What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
great distance of transport.
many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
example.
What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
great distance of transport.
curtjester1
Apr 23, 2012, 3:57:48 PM4/23/12
to
curtjester1
Apr 23, 2012, 4:09:06 PM4/23/12
to
If one goes to the Wyoming State Geological Survey webpage, he may see
a photograph of an impressive coal mine. The thickness of the coal
layers is significant: "Each seam measures between 30 and 50 feet
thick." How could a a slow building-up of layers over millions of
years account for such uniformly thick layers of coal? A global flood
could have produced them rapidly, but slow processed could not have
buried these billions of tons of vegetation.
wg
Wombat
Apr 24, 2012, 2:41:49 AM4/24/12
to
On Apr 23, 10:09 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> > many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> > example.
>
> > What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> > level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> > clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> > geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> > diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> > nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> > there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> > 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> > great distance of transport.
You're way behind. Erratics are well known to have been moved by
> On Apr 23, 1:57 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> > many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> > example.
>
> > What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> > level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> > clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> > geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> > diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> > nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> > there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> > 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> > great distance of transport.
glacial acion.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=11481 is a good example,
also http://tinyurl.com/c9q3xfp
>
> Thick Coal Layers ..pg. 15 of Reasons to Affirm:
>
> If one goes to the Wyoming State Geological Survey webpage, he may see
> a photograph of an impressive coal mine. The thickness of the coal
> layers is significant: "Each seam measures between 30 and 50 feet
> thick." How could a a slow building-up of layers over millions of
> years account for such uniformly thick layers of coal? A global flood
> could have produced them rapidly, but slow processed could not have
> buried these billions of tons of vegetation.
>
> wg
harry k
Apr 24, 2012, 10:16:07 AM4/24/12
to
the icea gaes as any 6th grade kid knows.
Harry K
curtjester1
Apr 24, 2012, 11:23:16 AM4/24/12
to
wg
Tom McDonald
Apr 24, 2012, 12:22:43 PM4/24/12
to
Wombat
Apr 24, 2012, 12:24:22 PM4/24/12
to
curtjester1
Apr 24, 2012, 1:52:43 PM4/24/12
to
(where the rock slides have been noted to occur).
Of course deniers can dream of anything can't they?
They might want to consider some trees being forced into some of the
strata. Of course these programmed students will all say the stratas
were laid down millions of years ago and millions of years between
each layer. They forget though that trees don't quite live that
long....:).
Of course they will have to find some stupendous explanation for
that. Won't we bet that they will?
wg
curtjester1
Apr 24, 2012, 1:57:00 PM4/24/12
to
read up on the subject of rocks being displaced rapidly. Larry
Vardiman in Sleuthing Supefaults. It goes into Heart Mountain in
Wyoming. Dr. Stephen Austin, geologist, agrees that it is compelling
evidence for a catastrophic flood.
wg
Wombat
Apr 24, 2012, 2:44:46 PM4/24/12
to
Pity there is really no compelling evidence for a flood, except for
the tortured straining of YEC liars.
curtjester1
Apr 24, 2012, 3:41:56 PM4/24/12
to
look up stuff that counteracts your point of view, and find juvenile
excuses not to.
wg
Wombat
Apr 24, 2012, 4:03:41 PM4/24/12
to
shame, but I doubt it. I knew in 1975 that creationism and Ye Floode
were lies and nothing I have heard or read since has changed that.
Terry Cross
Apr 24, 2012, 10:01:17 PM4/24/12
to
TCross
harry k
Apr 24, 2012, 11:54:15 PM4/24/12
to
underestimate Grooms stupidity"
Harry K
harry k
Apr 24, 2012, 11:56:01 PM4/24/12
to
rapidly'? They weren't.
Harry K
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 1:14:26 AM4/25/12
to
Terry Cross
Apr 25, 2012, 1:38:33 AM4/25/12
to
unfamiliarity with literature. Nothing else.
TCross
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 3:53:37 AM4/25/12
to
curtjester1
Apr 25, 2012, 2:13:30 PM4/25/12
to
song, eh?....:)
wg
curtjester1
Apr 25, 2012, 2:19:53 PM4/25/12
to
wg
curtjester1
Apr 25, 2012, 2:21:44 PM4/25/12
to
wg
curtjester1
Apr 25, 2012, 2:15:17 PM4/25/12
to
"Stupid is as stupid does"...:)
wg
curtjester1
Apr 25, 2012, 2:19:22 PM4/25/12
to
be considered per se. They had to arrive 'supernaturally' because
there is no quartz in the region anywhere to have them get there. A
tremedous flood could get them there. There is no nature reason for
them to be there besides that.
wg
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 2:33:55 PM4/25/12
to
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 2:34:23 PM4/25/12
to
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 2:35:30 PM4/25/12
to
Wombat
Apr 25, 2012, 2:38:14 PM4/25/12
to
Tom McDonald
Apr 25, 2012, 2:52:52 PM4/25/12
to
more than 50,000 km² (20,000 mile²).[5] Several kilometers deep, they
obscure the underlying topography. Only nunataks protrude from the
surface. The only extant ice sheets are the two that cover most of
Antarctica and Greenland."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/nm74c
And, of course, there were many ice sheets/continental glaciers during
the various ice ages in Earth's history:
"An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term
reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere,
resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar
ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual
pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively
"glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and
intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically,
ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and
southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age
that began at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]
"More colloquially, "the Ice Age" refers to the most recent glacial
period that peaked approximately 20,000 years ago, in which extensive
ice sheets lay over large parts of the North American and Eurasian
continents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_ages
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/7u9zu7y
> "Stupid is as stupid does"...:)
Malte Runz
Apr 25, 2012, 6:37:27 PM4/25/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
and from where the creationist site mined the quotes
(http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf p. 104-107), you would
have read this:
***
The widespread, scattered distribution of the quartzite gravel
localities in the Wallowas at first suggests meandering across a
flood plain, but this seems to be ruled out by the size of the
boulders. Another possibility, that the scattered nature of the gravel
localities indicates more than one river branch, seems to be ruled
out by the distant source of the quartzites: they must have been
deposited along the main stem of the ancestral river. This helps
justify a third hypothesis: that only one great river periodically
occupied braided channels within a broad valley.
***
Does any of that support the biblical Flood? Follow the link and read the
conclusion yourself.
Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by con
men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
Honestly, you have to do better than this.
--
Malte Runz
news:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> example.
>
> What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> great distance of transport.
If you had taken the time to find to article J.E. Allen wrote on the subject
> From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> example.
>
> What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> great distance of transport.
and from where the creationist site mined the quotes
(http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf p. 104-107), you would
have read this:
***
The widespread, scattered distribution of the quartzite gravel
localities in the Wallowas at first suggests meandering across a
flood plain, but this seems to be ruled out by the size of the
boulders. Another possibility, that the scattered nature of the gravel
localities indicates more than one river branch, seems to be ruled
out by the distant source of the quartzites: they must have been
deposited along the main stem of the ancestral river. This helps
justify a third hypothesis: that only one great river periodically
occupied braided channels within a broad valley.
***
Does any of that support the biblical Flood? Follow the link and read the
conclusion yourself.
Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by con
men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
Honestly, you have to do better than this.
--
Malte Runz
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 12:02:09 PM4/26/12
to
usually hang out in water.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 12:05:46 PM4/26/12
to
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 12:04:58 PM4/26/12
to
where melting ice is going to do that? Remember, I told you about the
Strait of Gibraltar which needed extreme volume and force of water for
separating the land masses. That's not going to happen by ice...but a
huge flood would.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 12:11:48 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 25, 4:37 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
Sure it does. Are you going to base something on a mystical river
that travelled across the earth? Or as most of the evidence already
shows, as massive flood gave/gives much evidence in all areas under
topic, that just being one.
> Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by con
> men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', while people who
don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
> Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
over millions of years. And if you read all the pertinent threads,
you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
of time in many scenarios.
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
that travelled across the earth? Or as most of the evidence already
shows, as massive flood gave/gives much evidence in all areas under
topic, that just being one.
> Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by con
> men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', while people who
don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
> Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
over millions of years. And if you read all the pertinent threads,
you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
of time in many scenarios.
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
Wombat
Apr 26, 2012, 1:34:22 PM4/26/12
to
incomprehensible. The Straits of Gibraltar were broken about 5
million years ago, the last time the Med. was flooded. Was that by Ye
Floode? Or was it by Felice?
Wombat
Apr 26, 2012, 1:24:48 PM4/26/12
to
mountains where Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz worked as he came out with
the Theory of Glaciation. Wa--a--y above sea level.
I once saw a beautiful hanging valley in a valley clearly carved by a
glacier well above sea level near Helvellyn.
osugeography
Apr 26, 2012, 2:21:15 PM4/26/12
to
A statement so ignorant as to be, well...just...ignorant.
Tidewater glaciers, yes. Ever hear of alpine glaciation?
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Terry Cross
Apr 26, 2012, 2:43:01 PM4/26/12
to
nevertheless. At least, the glaciers in my neighborhood.
TCross
Tom McDonald
Apr 26, 2012, 2:56:48 PM4/26/12
to
on land, even today. In the past, there have been numerous ice ages,
each of which was characterized by advances and retreats of continental
ice sheets.
So when you write:
"I wouldn't expect the glaciers to be on land? Did yours?"
(well, everyone's glaciers) were on land, and moved; and in moving,
moved countless huge blocks of stone for hundreds of miles.
And I guess my second point is that you were right when you wrote,
"Stupid is as stupid does". And, since you did stupid, I guess, by your
lights, you're stupid.
osugeography
Apr 26, 2012, 3:19:44 PM4/26/12
to
take Culinary Glaciology 5123, so kindly explain what "very chewy
water" means, particularly in regards to my comment on "glaciers
usually hang out in water".
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Parrish *~
Apr 26, 2012, 4:07:57 PM4/26/12
to
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bbc8c1a1-fa4a-4724...@ca2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Since you seen to have a dyslexic syntax problem, you might want to
read up on the subject of rocks being displaced rapidly. Larry
Vardiman in Sleuthing Supefaults. It goes into Heart Mountain in
Wyoming. Dr. Stephen Austin, geologist, agrees that it is compelling
evidence for a catastrophic flood.
wg
And yet he hasn't produced one iota of that evidence. There have been
catastrophic floods many many times on the earth. Just as there have been
serious earth quakes and volcanoes. There is no evidence of a global flood
where millions of living beings survived on an Ark, cared for by a small
handful of people.
Terry Cross
Apr 26, 2012, 4:14:26 PM4/26/12
to
> > nevertheless. At least, the glaciers in my neighborhood.
>
> > TCross
>
> Terry, when I was completing my formal studies in geology, I didn't
> take Culinary Glaciology 5123, so kindly explain what "very chewy
> water" means, particularly in regards to my comment on "glaciers
> usually hang out in water".
If ever you order a glacier cocktail, make sure you chew the lumps.
>
> > TCross
>
> Terry, when I was completing my formal studies in geology, I didn't
> take Culinary Glaciology 5123, so kindly explain what "very chewy
> water" means, particularly in regards to my comment on "glaciers
> usually hang out in water".
They won't go through the straw until the glass has been on the table
for an hour or two.
TCross
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 4:33:15 PM4/26/12
to
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 4:37:24 PM4/26/12
to
have?
> And I guess my second point is that you were right when you wrote,
> "Stupid is as stupid does". And, since you did stupid, I guess, by your
> lights, you're stupid.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 4:35:24 PM4/26/12
to
Well, I don't assume them to be flat. How many could be associated
with huge natural phenomena?
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 4:38:09 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 2:07 pm, "Parrish *~" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
You haven't been reading. You've been gone for months.
wg
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
wg
curtjester1
Apr 26, 2012, 4:34:05 PM4/26/12
to
How did they affect their rocks?
wg
Malte Runz
Apr 26, 2012, 6:21:54 PM4/26/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:f8713ee2-022f-4c9e...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
You obviously didn't follow the link I provided and read Allen's paper.
There is nothing mystical about the old rivers. The evidence shows, clearly,
that rivers and streams has shaped the landscapes mentioned in the article.
Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a Biblical-Flood-like
event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders. But I
bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted from
(http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's paper
and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for the
flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who are
willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
> ... while people who
their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to be
able to examine "their beliefs".
This is what Allen 'believes'
***
DISCUSSION
What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
***
And here's John Hergenrather
***
The most likely process
For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm 104:6–8
is describing:
‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
***
That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
>
> > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
> >
> We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> over millions of years. ...
Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
> ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist are
making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood really
happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling. They
want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
--
Malte Runz
news:f8713ee2-022f-4c9e...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
There is nothing mystical about the old rivers. The evidence shows, clearly,
that rivers and streams has shaped the landscapes mentioned in the article.
>
>
> > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by
> > con
> > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
> >
> Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
>
> > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by
> > con
> > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
> >
> Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a Biblical-Flood-like
event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders. But I
bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted from
(http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's paper
and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for the
flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who are
willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
> ... while people who
> don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to be
able to examine "their beliefs".
This is what Allen 'believes'
***
DISCUSSION
What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
***
And here's John Hergenrather
***
The most likely process
For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm 104:6–8
is describing:
‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
***
That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
>
> > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
> >
> We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
> ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> of time in many scenarios.
Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam, and
> of time in many scenarios.
you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist are
making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood really
happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling. They
want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
Apr 26, 2012, 6:22:03 PM4/26/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:34e29e42-b634-438c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
No they don't. You have been lied to, and you chose to continue to believe
the lies you're told.
--
Malte Runz
news:34e29e42-b634-438c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
the lies you're told.
--
Malte Runz
osugeography
Apr 26, 2012, 7:21:44 PM4/26/12
to
drink remaining on the table for a couple of hours. I prefer ice that
crackles in the drink-glass, and feel no desire to dilute my mixed
drink, even if the ice is chewy. But good luck on your glacier
cocktail...
Marvin Sebourn
osugeo...@aol.com
Caranx latus
Apr 26, 2012, 8:45:42 PM4/26/12
to
ignorance? Glaciers are on land. Icebergs are in water.
Caranx latus
Apr 26, 2012, 8:52:28 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/26/2012 6:22 PM, Malte Runz wrote:
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
<snip>
>> The claim was that the rocks were moved on land by glaciers. Glaciers
>> usually hang out in water.
>
> No they don't. You have been lied to, and you chose to continue to
> believe the lies you're told.
Not this time. This time it came straight from his own brain.
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
<snip>
>> The claim was that the rocks were moved on land by glaciers. Glaciers
>> usually hang out in water.
>
> No they don't. You have been lied to, and you chose to continue to
> believe the lies you're told.
Caranx latus
Apr 26, 2012, 9:20:24 PM4/26/12
to
relative directions and speeds that each plate is moving. Like the one
on page 114 here:
<https://www.openseismo.org/contributors/Lee/MoWorking_Backups/Mo20111219/MoWorking/Papers_NotUsed/0_Tectonics/539_McK72_McKenzie_GJRAS1972_p109.pdf>
or:
<http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
each other than they are now.
harry k
Apr 26, 2012, 11:15:28 PM4/26/12
to
Harry K
harry k
Apr 26, 2012, 11:14:42 PM4/26/12
to
makes
even a modicum of sense in English? If you meant that glaciers
aren't on land ... _All_ glaciers are on land.
Harry K
harry k
Apr 26, 2012, 11:18:27 PM4/26/12
to
evidence he _has_ a brain.
Harry K
harry k
Apr 26, 2012, 11:21:40 PM4/26/12
to
apparently. Even my 7YOA nephew knows better than to make the
statement you did.
Harry K
Terry Cross
Apr 27, 2012, 12:58:49 AM4/27/12
to
> or:
> <http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
>
> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
> each other than they are now.
The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
> <http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
>
> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
> each other than they are now.
view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
to those of use who have been around for while.
TCross
Wombat
Apr 27, 2012, 1:15:58 AM4/27/12
to
Wombat
Apr 27, 2012, 1:23:51 AM4/27/12
to
From http://www.hhgs.org.uk/monthly_meetings/previous_meetings/lake_district/lake_district.htm
or even http://tinyurl.com/73uwphk
"This whole region (The Lake District) is good example of glaciation
and has all the text book examples associated with the formation of
this landscape : ‘U’ shaped-valleys, lakes, moraines, alluvial fans,
corries. Buttermere has post glacial deposits and arêtes and razor
back edges. Derwent water is the shallowest lake and has drumlins and
eskers. Penrith and Keswick have truncated spurs. The erratics in
Thirlmere show the direction of the glacial flow. There are nearly 200
corries, which are difficult to date but probably developed over the
last 2 million years during the Quaternery. The moraines are also the
result of the last glaciation. The glacial deposit of till or boulder
clay was 20,000 years ago during the Devensian glaciation and is
therefore recent and gave rise to the drumlins. The deposits below
these are heavily weathered and very different from the last
glaciation. This is evidence of previous glaciation and is the only
site of two-stage glaciation in N. England. The till is quite thick
and in places up to 10m thick. The head of Langdale Pike has
moraines."
Mike Painter
Apr 27, 2012, 2:17:07 AM4/27/12
to
On 4/26/2012 9:58 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
> view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
> theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
> in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
> that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
> radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
>
> Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
> will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
> to those of use who have been around for while.
If you understood science you would have the answer and if you read a
> The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
> view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
> theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
> in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
> that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
> radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
>
> Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
> will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
> to those of use who have been around for while.
little you would know that your claim is not true.
But, like Bible Bob, you have an inane view.
" Facts start out as theories, and then when enough evidence accumulates
become fact. There is no hard and fast rules as to what is fact and
what is theory. Nevertheless, 'facts' can be overturned quite easily,
either slowly through the accumulation of new knowledge"
Caranx latus
Apr 27, 2012, 8:49:56 AM4/27/12
to
Terry Cross
Apr 27, 2012, 8:59:44 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26, 11:17 pm, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 9:58 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
> > view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
> > theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
> > in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
> > that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
> > radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
>
> > Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
> > will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
> > to those of use who have been around for while.
>
> If you understood science you would have the answer and if you read a
> little you would know that your claim is not true.
>
> But, like Bible Bob, you have an inane view.
>
> " Facts start out as theories, and then when enough evidence accumulates
> become fact.
Wow! Like the distance to the Sun was just a suggestion. After a
> On 4/26/2012 9:58 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
> > view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
> > theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
> > in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
> > that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
> > radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
>
> > Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
> > will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
> > to those of use who have been around for while.
>
> If you understood science you would have the answer and if you read a
> little you would know that your claim is not true.
>
> But, like Bible Bob, you have an inane view.
>
> " Facts start out as theories, and then when enough evidence accumulates
> become fact.
while the evidence accumulated and the theory condensed into the fact
of $93,000,000 miles.
In the beginning was the word ...
> There is no hard and fast rules as to what is fact and
> what is theory.
from your observations, either. History and science is mere clay in
the hands of an experience manipulator of facts.
> Nevertheless, 'facts' can be overturned quite easily,
> either slowly through the accumulation of new knowledge"
TCross
Caranx latus
Apr 27, 2012, 9:17:19 AM4/27/12
to
Mediterranean is closing isn't a theory. It's an extrapolation from
measurements. Perhaps you aren't aware that we can actually measure the
motion of tectonic plates now.
Yes, theories are revised. That's one of their strengths. That process
of revision leads to a convergence on explanation. As a phenomenon is
better and better understood, we can say things about it with more
precision and accuracy.
> Yet you strut and boast and pontificate as though your grandchildren
> will be reading from the same propaganda books. It really is a giggle
> to those of use who have been around for while.
Devils Advocaat
Apr 27, 2012, 10:02:27 AM4/27/12
to
Terry Cross
Apr 27, 2012, 10:14:48 AM4/27/12
to
TCross
Tom McDonald
Apr 27, 2012, 10:44:13 AM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 7:59 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
<snip--see, Terr, this is how you do it honestly>
> $93,000,000 miles.
What is a 'dollar mile'? Is it anything like a 'light year'?
> In the beginning was the word ...
Yes, which you just made up. Must be wonderful, not being tied to
reality or truth.
<snip>
<snip--see, Terr, this is how you do it honestly>
> $93,000,000 miles.
What is a 'dollar mile'? Is it anything like a 'light year'?
> In the beginning was the word ...
reality or truth.
<snip>
Mike Painter
Apr 27, 2012, 11:44:12 AM4/27/12
to
don't understand them or know how to use them.
Caranx latus
Apr 27, 2012, 7:15:53 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 10:14 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On Apr 27, 6:17 am, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On Apr 27, 6:17 am, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Take a look at a tectonic plate map sometime. One that shows the
>>>> relative directions and speeds that each plate is moving. Like the one
>>>> on page 114 here:
>>
>>>> <https://www.openseismo.org/contributors/Lee/MoWorking_Backups/Mo20111...>
>>>> or:
>>>> <http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
>>
>>>> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
>>>> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
>>>> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
>>>> each other than they are now.
>>
>>> The truly funny thing is that you true believers in "science" never
>>> view your own day with the circumspection of history. The foundation
>>> theories on every subject have all been radically revised or replaced
>>> in the last 100 years. And the same was true in the 100 years before
>>> that. By what arrogance do you imagine the modern theories will no be
>>> radically revised or replaced in the next 100 years?
>>
>> I have no idea where this rant of your comes from.
>
>
> Exactly my point. And isn't that a hoot?
Nice of you to snip everything else. There must be a word for someone
that pretends the main points of an argument never existed, preferring
instead to snipe about something trivial. 'Heckler' doesn't seem to
cover it.
Tom McDonald
Apr 27, 2012, 7:52:49 PM4/27/12
to
Asshole?
Republican?
But I repeat myself.
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:00:07 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 26, 4:21 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:f8713ee2-022f-4c9e...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
to be obsessing. There are many non-creationist folk who believe in a
castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
>
> > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by
> > > con
> > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
> > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
>
> Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a Biblical-Flood-like
> event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders. But I
> bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted from
> (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's paper
> and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for the
> flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
>
Well, its a problem that can't be solved by mere glaciers, can it?
> You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who are
> willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
>
There is ample evidence in all areas for a global flood, if you have
read the threads.
> > ... while people who
> > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
>
> Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to be
> able to examine "their beliefs".
>
Science doesn't look for creativity or engineering trails when it
doesn't have answers.
> This is what Allen 'believes'
> ***
> DISCUSSION
> What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> ***
>
You can find topography, oceanography, taphononomy and all sorts of
sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
> And here's John Hergenrather
> ***
> The most likely process
>
> For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm 104:6–8
> is describing:
>
Probably so.
> ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
>
> The waters were standing above the mountains.
>
> At your rebuke they fled,
>
> At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
>
> The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
>
> To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> ***
>
> That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
>
No, because you act like its a science book. The science it
generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
>
> > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
> > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > over millions of years. ...
>
> Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
>
Intrustion? Like the tree decided to climb on its own, or grow on its
own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
how it 'intruded' eh?
> > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > of time in many scenarios.
>
> Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam, and
> you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
>
They aren't being debunked here. Opinions are not debunkings. That's
all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
and wild generalizing's.
> There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist are
> making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood really
> happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling. They
> want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
>
And that's a bad thing??!! LOL.
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:f8713ee2-022f-4c9e...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 4:37 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> > > "curtjester1" skrev i
> > > meddelelsennews:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> > > > many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> > > > example.
>
> > > > What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> > > > level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> > > > clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> > > > geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> > > > diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> > > > nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> > > > there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> > > > 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> > > > great distance of transport.
>
> > > If you had taken the time to find to article J.E. Allen wrote on the
> > > subject
> > > and from where the creationist site mined the quotes
> > > (http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdfp. 104-107), you
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 4:37 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> > > "curtjester1" skrev i
> > > meddelelsennews:83fcfc71-d801-44f0...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > From pg. 14 of Reason to Affirm a Global Flood by Humber. There are
> > > > many links to the subject matter, but I will stick to one given
> > > > example.
>
> > > > What could possibly have moved these rocks 300-600 miles almost over
> > > > level ground (less than a 1degree slope? The geological forces are
> > > > clearly not happening today....and the example: Portand University
> > > > geologist Dr. J.E. Allen discovered quartzite boulders up to 3 ft. in
> > > > diameter on several mountains in northeast Oregon. He wrote, 'no
> > > > nearby source has been recognized,' and suggested they were carried
> > > > there by a 'torrential paleoriver.' Then he admitted this theory was
> > > > 'an outrageous hypothesis' considering the wide distributions and
> > > > great distance of transport.
>
> > > If you had taken the time to find to article J.E. Allen wrote on the
> > > subject
> > > and from where the creationist site mined the quotes
> > > would
> > > have read this:
> > > ***
> > > The widespread, scattered distribution of the quartzite gravel
> > > localities in the Wallowas at first suggests meandering across a
> > > flood plain, but this seems to be ruled out by the size of the
> > > boulders. Another possibility, that the scattered nature of the gravel
> > > localities indicates more than one river branch, seems to be ruled
> > > out by the distant source of the quartzites: they must have been
> > > deposited along the main stem of the ancestral river. This helps
> > > justify a third hypothesis: that only one great river periodically
> > > occupied braided channels within a broad valley.
> > > ***
>
> > > Does any of that support the biblical Flood? Follow the link and read
> > > the
> > > conclusion yourself.
>
> > Sure it does. Are you going to base something on a mystical river
> > that travelled across the earth? Or as most of the evidence already
> > shows, as massive flood gave/gives much evidence in all areas under
> > topic, that just being one.
>
> You obviously didn't follow the link I provided and read Allen's paper.
> There is nothing mystical about the old rivers. The evidence shows, clearly,
> that rivers and streams has shaped the landscapes mentioned in the article.
>
>
You can read anything, but that doesn't mean it's correct. You seem
> > > have read this:
> > > ***
> > > The widespread, scattered distribution of the quartzite gravel
> > > localities in the Wallowas at first suggests meandering across a
> > > flood plain, but this seems to be ruled out by the size of the
> > > boulders. Another possibility, that the scattered nature of the gravel
> > > localities indicates more than one river branch, seems to be ruled
> > > out by the distant source of the quartzites: they must have been
> > > deposited along the main stem of the ancestral river. This helps
> > > justify a third hypothesis: that only one great river periodically
> > > occupied braided channels within a broad valley.
> > > ***
>
> > > Does any of that support the biblical Flood? Follow the link and read
> > > the
> > > conclusion yourself.
>
> > Sure it does. Are you going to base something on a mystical river
> > that travelled across the earth? Or as most of the evidence already
> > shows, as massive flood gave/gives much evidence in all areas under
> > topic, that just being one.
>
> You obviously didn't follow the link I provided and read Allen's paper.
> There is nothing mystical about the old rivers. The evidence shows, clearly,
> that rivers and streams has shaped the landscapes mentioned in the article.
>
>
to be obsessing. There are many non-creationist folk who believe in a
castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
>
> > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied to by
> > > con
> > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
> > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
>
> Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a Biblical-Flood-like
> event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders. But I
> bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted from
> (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's paper
> and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for the
> flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
>
> You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who are
> willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
>
read the threads.
> > ... while people who
> > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
>
> Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to be
> able to examine "their beliefs".
>
doesn't have answers.
> This is what Allen 'believes'
> ***
> DISCUSSION
> What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> ***
>
sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
> And here's John Hergenrather
> ***
> The most likely process
>
> For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm 104:6–8
> is describing:
>
> ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
>
> The waters were standing above the mountains.
>
> At your rebuke they fled,
>
> At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
>
> The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
>
> To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> ***
>
> That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
>
generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
>
> > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
> > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > over millions of years. ...
>
> Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
>
own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
how it 'intruded' eh?
> > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > of time in many scenarios.
>
> Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam, and
> you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
>
all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
and wild generalizing's.
> There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist are
> making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood really
> happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling. They
> want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
>
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:03:28 PM4/28/12
to
long distances. I like how total issues are ignored for their chance
to be a juvenile.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:02:01 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 26, 4:22 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:34e29e42-b634-438c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
You seem not to be able to answer to the problem, much less a 'lie'.
You need to move heavy rocks down a tiny 1 % grade, 500 miles and
explain how they got there.
wg
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:34e29e42-b634-438c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
You need to move heavy rocks down a tiny 1 % grade, 500 miles and
explain how they got there.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:04:34 PM4/28/12
to
> or:
> <http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
>
> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
> each other than they are now.
Stick with your problem. Get the plates to collide, 'naturally', and
> <http://bit.ly/IkssHp>
>
> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
> each other than they are now.
get them to form Mt. Everest.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:06:03 PM4/28/12
to
little longer, this time.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 28, 2012, 12:07:05 PM4/28/12
to
> or evenhttp://tinyurl.com/73uwphk
>
> "This whole region (The Lake District) is good example of glaciation
> and has all the text book examples associated with the formation of
> this landscape : ‘U’ shaped-valleys, lakes, moraines, alluvial fans,
> corries. Buttermere has post glacial deposits and arêtes and razor
> back edges. Derwent water is the shallowest lake and has drumlins and
> eskers. Penrith and Keswick have truncated spurs. The erratics in
> Thirlmere show the direction of the glacial flow. There are nearly 200
> corries, which are difficult to date but probably developed over the
> last 2 million years during the Quaternery. The moraines are also the
> result of the last glaciation. The glacial deposit of till or boulder
> clay was 20,000 years ago during the Devensian glaciation and is
> therefore recent and gave rise to the drumlins. The deposits below
> these are heavily weathered and very different from the last
> glaciation. This is evidence of previous glaciation and is the only
> site of two-stage glaciation in N. England. The till is quite thick
> and in places up to 10m thick. The head of Langdale Pike has
> moraines."
Now tell us how the rocks moved.
> "This whole region (The Lake District) is good example of glaciation
> and has all the text book examples associated with the formation of
> this landscape : ‘U’ shaped-valleys, lakes, moraines, alluvial fans,
> corries. Buttermere has post glacial deposits and arêtes and razor
> back edges. Derwent water is the shallowest lake and has drumlins and
> eskers. Penrith and Keswick have truncated spurs. The erratics in
> Thirlmere show the direction of the glacial flow. There are nearly 200
> corries, which are difficult to date but probably developed over the
> last 2 million years during the Quaternery. The moraines are also the
> result of the last glaciation. The glacial deposit of till or boulder
> clay was 20,000 years ago during the Devensian glaciation and is
> therefore recent and gave rise to the drumlins. The deposits below
> these are heavily weathered and very different from the last
> glaciation. This is evidence of previous glaciation and is the only
> site of two-stage glaciation in N. England. The till is quite thick
> and in places up to 10m thick. The head of Langdale Pike has
> moraines."
wg
Caranx latus
Apr 28, 2012, 12:25:34 PM4/28/12
to
capacity to think. You're unreachable.
harry k
Apr 28, 2012, 12:24:25 PM4/28/12
to
Transport by a few thousand men over years and years.
Or were you trying for a magical "poof"?
Harry K
harry k
Apr 28, 2012, 12:21:48 PM4/28/12
to
years? Onnly idiots and morons deny it.
Harry K
harry k
Apr 28, 2012, 12:25:41 PM4/28/12
to
Harry K
Caranx latus
Apr 28, 2012, 12:34:09 PM4/28/12
to
ice ages as any 6th grade kid knows"? Are you having trouble figuring
that one out? What's the issue? The three-syllable words? How do you
think a glacier would transport a rock? (Hint: they don't *pull* them.)
harry k
Apr 28, 2012, 12:22:32 PM4/28/12
to
Harry K
harry k
Apr 28, 2012, 12:25:05 PM4/28/12
to
Harry K
Wombat
Apr 28, 2012, 12:51:10 PM4/28/12
to
Tom McDonald
Apr 28, 2012, 1:20:35 PM4/28/12
to
Wombat
Apr 28, 2012, 1:43:05 PM4/28/12
to
advancing south tore rocks from their original positions and then,
when the ice sheets retreated, the rocks were left as erratics. One
above Derwent Water is a rock type found in Scotland.
Since I'm sure your mind is closed to this, please explain isostatic
rebound. I could do with a laugh.
Terry Cross
Apr 28, 2012, 3:28:39 PM4/28/12
to
beyond reasonable doubt. Bacon would be proud.
TCross
Malte Runz
Apr 28, 2012, 7:36:33 PM4/28/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:9ddf8663-173d-4728...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
First I need to know if you acknowledge the fact that glaciers are found on
land and not in or on open water?
Then I'll explain how they can move rocks. As if you haven't been told by
many others in this thread.
--
Malte Runz
news:9ddf8663-173d-4728...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
land and not in or on open water?
Then I'll explain how they can move rocks. As if you haven't been told by
many others in this thread.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
Apr 28, 2012, 9:12:27 PM4/28/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> > > > (http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf p. 104-107),
> You can read anything, but that doesn't mean it's correct. ...
I know. I've read parts of the bible. Plenty of things, that are not
correct!
> ... You seem
>
> >
> > > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied
> > > > to by
> > > > con
> > > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
> >
> > > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
> >
> > Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a
> > Biblical-Flood-like
> > event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders.
> > But I
> > bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted
> > from
> > (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's
> > paper
> > and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for
> > the
> > flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
> >
> Well, its a problem that can't be solved by mere glaciers, can it?
I saee you still haven't read the paper.
http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf
Allen doesn't talk about glaciers in this case. The boulders were moved by
water.
again.
>
> > > ... while people who
> > > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
> >
> > Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> > their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to
> > be
> > able to examine "their beliefs".
> >
> Science doesn't look for creativity or engineering trails when it
> doesn't have answers.
The first modern scientist did just that. But none of them found a creativ
ingeneer pulling the strings. The creation scenario quickly crumbled under
the weight of evidence against it.
And don't flatter your self, by claiming that the aim of science is to get
rid of gods. He's just collateral damage.
>
>
> > This is what Allen 'believes'
> > ***
> > DISCUSSION
> > What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> > of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> > Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> > provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> > be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> > arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> > scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> > ***
> >
> You can find topography, oceanography, taphononomy and all sorts of
> sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
Once there was a big flood in the US, once there was one in Europe and one
in Africa. What indicates that the events were part of a global flood?
Sometimes it rains in Beijing and sometimes in Oslo and Tierra del Fuego.
Will you characterize that as a world wide downpour?
>
>
> > And here's John Hergenrather
> > ***
> > The most likely process
> >
> > For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> > sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm
> > 104:6–8
> > is describing:
> >
>
> Probably so.
Really? You have loads of questions comming. A few obvious ones:
>
> > ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
Did God make the water appear out of nowhere?
Or did he trigger a completely natural event, following the laws of physics
as we see them work today?
> >
> > The waters were standing above the mountains.
> >
> > At your rebuke they fled,
Did the water drain away into Earth's interior, did it evaporate into space?
Maybe it just vanished magically at His rebuke?
> >
> > At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
> >
> > The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
So the mountains were smaller pre flood. Hmm... Any way of telling how much
they grew? How fast or how. Added sediments? Uplift? Magic? A bit of all
three just to make sure that all bases (and the mount) are covered?
> >
> > To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> > ***
> >
> > That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
> >
> >
> No, because you act like its a science book. The science it
> generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
I'm not asking you to find the answers to my questions in the Bible. I know
nothing is scientifically explained in that book. But you believe that the
description of events in the Bible is correct, and try to back it up with
scientific evidence. You're failing miserably.
Here is chance to score a few points though:
Show me some data that supports the idea, that all the flood events you
ascribe to the Flood, happened more or less simultaniously. Are any of the
current dating techniques reliable enough to give a conclusive answer in
your oppinion?
Or make a computermodel of a water covered Earth a have it, at your rebuke,
disappear gradually. Run different scenarios and see if any of them end
resembling what we actually observe today.
>
> >
> > > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
> >
> > > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > > over millions of years. ...
> >
> > Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
> >
> Intrustion? Like the tree decided to climb on its own, or grow on its
> own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
> how it 'intruded' eh?
I shouldn't actually have used the term 'intrusion' since it has a quite
different and specific meaning in geology. But no big deal. You didn't act
on the mistake, but came up with an infantile straw man instead.
Speaking of straw men and burried trees. Nobody claims that all sedimentary
layers take "millions of years" to be laid down. There are many examples of
rapid burial af trees. Some instances have been documented in 'real time'.
Nothing mystical or magical going on I can assure you. Wush is the word.
Stop listening to the likes of Hovind. He's one of the liars.
>
>
> > > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > > of time in many scenarios.
> >
> > Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam,
> > and
> > you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
> >
> They aren't being debunked here. Opinions are not debunkings. That's
> all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
> and wild generalizing's.
They're not mere oppinions. If you'd take the time and read the links people
provide you will see that they are based on the available scientific
evidence.
>
>
> > There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> > uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist
> > are
> > making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood
> > really
> > happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling.
> > They
> > want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
> >
> And that's a bad thing??!! LOL.
Yeah, keep laughing. There never was a mystical global flood, and there
never will be one. But if you need to believe in one and probably plenty
like it, in order to stay in line, and don't mind being lied to, be my
guest. I'm not really laughing, I just have that smug smile on my face, and
you know there is nothing you can do about it.
--
Malte Runz
news:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
I know. I've read parts of the bible. Plenty of things, that are not
correct!
> ... You seem
> to be obsessing. There are many non-creationist folk who believe in a
> castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
> it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
> finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
Red Herring. Back to the boulders, please.
> castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
> it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
> finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
>
> >
> > > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied
> > > > to by
> > > > con
> > > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
> >
> > > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
> >
> > Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a
> > Biblical-Flood-like
> > event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders.
> > But I
> > bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted
> > from
> > (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's
> > paper
> > and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for
> > the
> > flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
> >
> Well, its a problem that can't be solved by mere glaciers, can it?
http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf
Allen doesn't talk about glaciers in this case. The boulders were moved by
water.
>
>
> > You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who
> > are
> > willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
> >
>
> There is ample evidence in all areas for a global flood, if you have
> read the threads.
Read the answers, and you'll see why I don't need to debunk your evidence
>
> > You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who
> > are
> > willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
> >
>
> There is ample evidence in all areas for a global flood, if you have
> read the threads.
again.
>
> > > ... while people who
> > > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
> >
> > Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> > their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to
> > be
> > able to examine "their beliefs".
> >
> Science doesn't look for creativity or engineering trails when it
> doesn't have answers.
ingeneer pulling the strings. The creation scenario quickly crumbled under
the weight of evidence against it.
And don't flatter your self, by claiming that the aim of science is to get
rid of gods. He's just collateral damage.
>
>
> > This is what Allen 'believes'
> > ***
> > DISCUSSION
> > What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> > of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> > Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> > provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> > be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> > arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> > scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> > ***
> >
> You can find topography, oceanography, taphononomy and all sorts of
> sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
in Africa. What indicates that the events were part of a global flood?
Sometimes it rains in Beijing and sometimes in Oslo and Tierra del Fuego.
Will you characterize that as a world wide downpour?
>
>
> > And here's John Hergenrather
> > ***
> > The most likely process
> >
> > For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> > sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm
> > 104:6–8
> > is describing:
> >
>
> Probably so.
>
> > ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
Or did he trigger a completely natural event, following the laws of physics
as we see them work today?
> >
> > The waters were standing above the mountains.
> >
> > At your rebuke they fled,
Maybe it just vanished magically at His rebuke?
> >
> > At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
> >
> > The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
they grew? How fast or how. Added sediments? Uplift? Magic? A bit of all
three just to make sure that all bases (and the mount) are covered?
> >
> > To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> > ***
> >
> > That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
> >
> >
> No, because you act like its a science book. The science it
> generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
nothing is scientifically explained in that book. But you believe that the
description of events in the Bible is correct, and try to back it up with
scientific evidence. You're failing miserably.
Here is chance to score a few points though:
Show me some data that supports the idea, that all the flood events you
ascribe to the Flood, happened more or less simultaniously. Are any of the
current dating techniques reliable enough to give a conclusive answer in
your oppinion?
Or make a computermodel of a water covered Earth a have it, at your rebuke,
disappear gradually. Run different scenarios and see if any of them end
resembling what we actually observe today.
>
> >
> > > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
> >
> > > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > > over millions of years. ...
> >
> > Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
> >
> Intrustion? Like the tree decided to climb on its own, or grow on its
> own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
> how it 'intruded' eh?
different and specific meaning in geology. But no big deal. You didn't act
on the mistake, but came up with an infantile straw man instead.
Speaking of straw men and burried trees. Nobody claims that all sedimentary
layers take "millions of years" to be laid down. There are many examples of
rapid burial af trees. Some instances have been documented in 'real time'.
Nothing mystical or magical going on I can assure you. Wush is the word.
Stop listening to the likes of Hovind. He's one of the liars.
>
>
> > > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > > of time in many scenarios.
> >
> > Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam,
> > and
> > you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
> >
> They aren't being debunked here. Opinions are not debunkings. That's
> all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
> and wild generalizing's.
provide you will see that they are based on the available scientific
evidence.
>
>
> > There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> > uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist
> > are
> > making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood
> > really
> > happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling.
> > They
> > want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
> >
> And that's a bad thing??!! LOL.
never will be one. But if you need to believe in one and probably plenty
like it, in order to stay in line, and don't mind being lied to, be my
guest. I'm not really laughing, I just have that smug smile on my face, and
you know there is nothing you can do about it.
--
Malte Runz
curtjester1
Apr 29, 2012, 9:14:12 AM4/29/12
to
stuff...*see??* LOL. You seem to think by reciting some mantra of
creative- anything can happen when you add an eon to it- theory, that
you are really doing something. You need to take it where theory
becomes proof and then logiical.
Your mountain collidings provide no inch by inch play by play much
less them uplifting. Then you have the audacity to say 'my' top
marine fossils are being left without lower elevatory fossils. That
would be YOUR need to prove! You deliberately ran from that. Keep
running!
wg
curtjester1
Apr 29, 2012, 9:18:48 AM4/29/12
to
call back there.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 29, 2012, 9:17:18 AM4/29/12
to
it will then it could roll a rock, not while next to flat. You need
to roll these rocks 500 miles, not 500 cm's! LOL. You're the one
poofing. Get some horizontal force in your 'formulae'
wg
curtjester1
Apr 29, 2012, 9:20:51 AM4/29/12
to
for a long distance.
wg
curtjester1
Apr 29, 2012, 9:56:19 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 28, 7:12 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps you will want to remember the greatest admired man on earth
describing the earth under water with a warned global flood, and
liking it to a warning to all in the last days. Have you tried
reading it for the correc things??
> > ... You seem
> > to be obsessing. There are many non-creationist folk who believe in a
> > castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
> > it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
> > finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
>
> Red Herring. Back to the boulders, please.
>
>
All aspects are covered. It all has to do with dramatic movements.
You need to get something besides a slow moving icer to get a rock to
roll 500 miles on flat ground. Talk about your glacier mountain and
give us a real scenario, won't you?
>
> > > > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied
> > > > > to by
> > > > > con
> > > > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
> > > > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > > > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
>
> > > Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a
> > > Biblical-Flood-like
> > > event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders.
> > > But I
> > > bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted
> > > from
> > > (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's
> > > paper
> > > and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for
> > > the
> > > flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
>
> > Well, its a problem that can't be solved by mere glaciers, can it?
>
> I saee you still haven't read the paper.http://www.oregongeology.com/pubs/og/OGv53n05.pdf
between a local flood and a more dramatic one. You need to stick with
a force that will move tremendous weight over long, flat distances. I
don't look at links unless the poster is telling us what we need to
know to look at the link. You haven't done that yet.
>
> > > You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who
> > > are
> > > willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
>
> > There is ample evidence in all areas for a global flood, if you have
> > read the threads.
>
> Read the answers, and you'll see why I don't need to debunk your evidence
> again.
>
>
You read them. There is ample flood evidence from all earth sciences,
all cultures of relating the Flood, and even the people that have seen
the vessel on depicted mountain. You're new, and you haven't looked
at all the postings, I'm quite sure.
>
> > > > ... while people who
> > > > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > > > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > > > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
>
> > > Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> > > their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to
> > > be
> > > able to examine "their beliefs".
>
> > Science doesn't look for creativity or engineering trails when it
> > doesn't have answers.
>
> The first modern scientist did just that. But none of them found a creativ
> ingeneer pulling the strings. The creation scenario quickly crumbled under
> the weight of evidence against it.
>
Creation with a superior engineer skills have debunked evolutionary
religion in spades.
> And don't flatter your self, by claiming that the aim of science is to get
> rid of gods. He's just collateral damage.
>
>
Science uses religion as a crutch/scapegoat when it gets backed into a
corner which it does quite often.
>
> > > This is what Allen 'believes'
> > > ***
> > > DISCUSSION
> > > What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> > > of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> > > Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> > > provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> > > be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> > > arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> > > scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> > > ***
>
> > You can find topography, oceanography, taphononomy and all sorts of
> > sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
>
> Once there was a big flood in the US, once there was one in Europe and one
> in Africa. What indicates that the events were part of a global flood?
>
Because of the evidence produced or left behind. Fresh fossils on
high places....and separated continents with the same evidence left on
both sides should keep you busy if you really will look into the
evidences found.
> Sometimes it rains in Beijing and sometimes in Oslo and Tierra del Fuego.
> Will you characterize that as a world wide downpour?
>
>
>
> > > And here's John Hergenrather
> > > ***
> > > The most likely process
>
> > > For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> > > sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm
> > > 104:6–8
> > > is describing:
>
> > Probably so.
>
> Really? You have loads of questions comming. A few obvious ones:
>
>
Why not look for the obvious effects before looking for the detailed
causes? Hmmm.
>
> > > ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
>
> Did God make the water appear out of nowhere?
> Or did he trigger a completely natural event, following the laws of physics
> as we see them work today?
>
>
The Bible says waters above and waters below. Why don't you fill in
the blanks. No rain or rainbow prior to Noah's flood.
>
> > > The waters were standing above the mountains.
>
> > > At your rebuke they fled,
>
> Did the water drain away into Earth's interior, did it evaporate into space?
> Maybe it just vanished magically at His rebuke?
>
>
At least the first two.
>
> > > At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
>
> > > The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
>
> So the mountains were smaller pre flood. Hmm... Any way of telling how much
> they grew? How fast or how. Added sediments? Uplift? Magic? A bit of all
> three just to make sure that all bases (and the mount) are covered?
>
>
All been guesstimated. There are no issues not covered in Flood
books.
>
> > > To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> > > ***
>
> > > That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
> > No, because you act like its a science book. The science it
> > generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
>
> I'm not asking you to find the answers to my questions in the Bible. I know
> nothing is scientifically explained in that book. But you believe that the
> description of events in the Bible is correct, and try to back it up with
> scientific evidence. You're failing miserably.
>
It's not my desire to. There is ample evidence that the Bible is true
and the event happened on its own merits, without involving science.
Science is brought in for those interested in science, and that's what
I do, tell people and create interest that science is working on the
Flood and coming up with huge answers. I don't need them per se, and
attempt to show the Bible message is the key for all life's existence
on earth; past, present, and the immediate future. It is interesting
though that the Bible depicted the earth as being round and not
hanging on anything well before science got around to that.
> Here is chance to score a few points though:
> Show me some data that supports the idea, that all the flood events you
> ascribe to the Flood, happened more or less simultaniously. Are any of the
> current dating techniques reliable enough to give a conclusive answer in
> your oppinion?
>
Your chance is to pick up cheap books, or re-read the threads. Lots
of catastrophism, suddenness, and geologicial finds. Dating
techniques are in the books, and what I have touched on is some of the
wood samples shown from the Ark to be in a good window of time period
by many. And it shows how techniques can vary on the same object as
well.
> Or make a computermodel of a water covered Earth a have it, at your rebuke,
> disappear gradually. Run different scenarios and see if any of them end
> resembling what we actually observe today.
>
>
Maybe the Global Flood Pocket Guide will help you. I think one poster
got one online (kindle).
>
> > > > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
> > > > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > > > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > > > over millions of years. ...
>
> > > Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
>
> > Intrustion? Like the tree decided to climb on its own, or grow on its
> > own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
> > how it 'intruded' eh?
>
> I shouldn't actually have used the term 'intrusion' since it has a quite
> different and specific meaning in geology. But no big deal. You didn't act
> on the mistake, but came up with an infantile straw man instead.
>
Really? It's a crux of many of argument that things are in the
stratas and other places that just shouldn't be there by any small
catastrophy or long period of time scenario.
> Speaking of straw men and burried trees. Nobody claims that all sedimentary
> layers take "millions of years" to be laid down. There are many examples of
> rapid burial af trees. Some instances have been documented in 'real time'.
> Nothing mystical or magical going on I can assure you. Wush is the word.
> Stop listening to the likes of Hovind. He's one of the liars.
>
>
Well, you at least admit a little. That's a start. Now find how
trees go up high, independently and get stuck.
>
> > > > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > > > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > > > of time in many scenarios.
>
> > > Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam,
> > > and
> > > you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
>
> > They aren't being debunked here. Opinions are not debunkings. That's
> > all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
> > and wild generalizing's.
>
> They're not mere oppinions. If you'd take the time and read the links people
> provide you will see that they are based on the available scientific
> evidence.
>
>
When you come up with a palatable scenario from them, and can use
backup without assuming what you're trying to prove, then you'll get a
listening ear. So far its 0 for 3000.
>
> > > There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> > > uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist
> > > are
> > > making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood
> > > really
> > > happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling.
> > > They
> > > want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
>
> > And that's a bad thing??!! LOL.
>
> Yeah, keep laughing. There never was a mystical global flood, and there
> never will be one. But if you need to believe in one and probably plenty
> like it, in order to stay in line, and don't mind being lied to, be my
> guest. I'm not really laughing, I just have that smug smile on my face, and
> you know there is nothing you can do about it.
>
Most every society has something to say on that earthwide. Maybe you
can start from there, and not make strawmen up about local floods that
are impossible and that they have the same basic Bible account of the
flood. There's a whole lot of water on this earth you can't account
for and science isn't helping you state how it got here...:).
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
describing the earth under water with a warned global flood, and
liking it to a warning to all in the last days. Have you tried
reading it for the correc things??
> > ... You seem
> > to be obsessing. There are many non-creationist folk who believe in a
> > castrophy to say make the Strait of Gibraltar and other places like
> > it. I prefer people to explain their links, to see if they are just
> > finding something contrary, or really understanding what they read.
>
> Red Herring. Back to the boulders, please.
>
>
You need to get something besides a slow moving icer to get a rock to
roll 500 miles on flat ground. Talk about your glacier mountain and
give us a real scenario, won't you?
>
> > > > > Another example of how people like you are being deliberately lied
> > > > > to by
> > > > > con
> > > > > men and science frauds with a religious agenda.
>
> > > > Oh really? Why is it that people who depend on honesty for their
> > > > beliefs and salvation and lifestyle seem 'to lie', ...
>
> > > Because I read Allen's paper and he does not mention a
> > > Biblical-Flood-like
> > > event as a possible explanation for the displacement of the boulders.
> > > But I
> > > bet that John Hergenrather, the guy who wrote the article you quoted
> > > from
> > > (http://creation.com/noahs-long-distance-travelers), has read Allen's
> > > paper
> > > and he must have known, that he cannot interpret Allen's as support for
> > > the
> > > flood scenario he wants you to believe in.
>
> > Well, its a problem that can't be solved by mere glaciers, can it?
>
> Allen doesn't talk about glaciers in this case. The boulders were moved by
> water.
>
>
Well, look at water cases then. Try to figure out the difference
> water.
>
>
between a local flood and a more dramatic one. You need to stick with
a force that will move tremendous weight over long, flat distances. I
don't look at links unless the poster is telling us what we need to
know to look at the link. You haven't done that yet.
>
> > > You don't depend on honesty for your salvation. You depend on people who
> > > are
> > > willing to lie, blatantly, to you.
>
> > There is ample evidence in all areas for a global flood, if you have
> > read the threads.
>
> Read the answers, and you'll see why I don't need to debunk your evidence
> again.
>
>
all cultures of relating the Flood, and even the people that have seen
the vessel on depicted mountain. You're new, and you haven't looked
at all the postings, I'm quite sure.
>
> > > > ... while people who
> > > > don't have any higher power to answer to, have all the reason to lie
> > > > by creating careers and getting their beliefs in print or media for
> > > > dollar gain, seem to be 'truthers'?
>
> > > Scientists don't have to answer to higher powers. They have to answer to
> > > their peers and everybody else who has given himself the possibility to
> > > be
> > > able to examine "their beliefs".
>
> > Science doesn't look for creativity or engineering trails when it
> > doesn't have answers.
>
> The first modern scientist did just that. But none of them found a creativ
> ingeneer pulling the strings. The creation scenario quickly crumbled under
> the weight of evidence against it.
>
religion in spades.
> And don't flatter your self, by claiming that the aim of science is to get
> rid of gods. He's just collateral damage.
>
>
corner which it does quite often.
>
> > > This is what Allen 'believes'
> > > ***
> > > DISCUSSION
> > > What was the lower Miocene topography like? Was the uplift
> > > of the Wallowas uniform, or did it tilt, arch, or dome the area?
> > > Was this torrent a Snake or Columbia paleoriver? What is the
> > > provenance of the gravels? Can the gradient of a torrential paleoriver
> > > be distinguished from the difference in elevation resulting from
> > > arching and upfaulting of the Wallowa Mountains? Can widely
> > > scattered gravels be deposited by one river?
> > > ***
>
> > You can find topography, oceanography, taphononomy and all sorts of
> > sciences supported in the global flood evidences.
>
> Once there was a big flood in the US, once there was one in Europe and one
> in Africa. What indicates that the events were part of a global flood?
>
high places....and separated continents with the same evidence left on
both sides should keep you busy if you really will look into the
evidences found.
> Sometimes it rains in Beijing and sometimes in Oslo and Tierra del Fuego.
> Will you characterize that as a world wide downpour?
>
>
>
> > > And here's John Hergenrather
> > > ***
> > > The most likely process
>
> > > For the waters of Noah’s Flood to recede, there had to be differential
> > > sinking and rising of the earth’s crust. This is probably what Psalm
> > > 104:6–8
> > > is describing:
>
> > Probably so.
>
> Really? You have loads of questions comming. A few obvious ones:
>
>
causes? Hmmm.
>
> > > ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
>
> Did God make the water appear out of nowhere?
> Or did he trigger a completely natural event, following the laws of physics
> as we see them work today?
>
>
the blanks. No rain or rainbow prior to Noah's flood.
>
> > > The waters were standing above the mountains.
>
> > > At your rebuke they fled,
>
> Did the water drain away into Earth's interior, did it evaporate into space?
> Maybe it just vanished magically at His rebuke?
>
>
>
> > > At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
>
> > > The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
>
> So the mountains were smaller pre flood. Hmm... Any way of telling how much
> they grew? How fast or how. Added sediments? Uplift? Magic? A bit of all
> three just to make sure that all bases (and the mount) are covered?
>
>
books.
>
> > > To the place which You established for them.’ (NASB)
> > > ***
>
> > > That's how 'answering to a higher power' compares to science.
>
> > No, because you act like its a science book. The science it
> > generalizes proves to be true by actual science.
>
> I'm not asking you to find the answers to my questions in the Bible. I know
> nothing is scientifically explained in that book. But you believe that the
> description of events in the Bible is correct, and try to back it up with
> scientific evidence. You're failing miserably.
>
and the event happened on its own merits, without involving science.
Science is brought in for those interested in science, and that's what
I do, tell people and create interest that science is working on the
Flood and coming up with huge answers. I don't need them per se, and
attempt to show the Bible message is the key for all life's existence
on earth; past, present, and the immediate future. It is interesting
though that the Bible depicted the earth as being round and not
hanging on anything well before science got around to that.
> Here is chance to score a few points though:
> Show me some data that supports the idea, that all the flood events you
> ascribe to the Flood, happened more or less simultaniously. Are any of the
> current dating techniques reliable enough to give a conclusive answer in
> your oppinion?
>
of catastrophism, suddenness, and geologicial finds. Dating
techniques are in the books, and what I have touched on is some of the
wood samples shown from the Ark to be in a good window of time period
by many. And it shows how techniques can vary on the same object as
well.
> Or make a computermodel of a water covered Earth a have it, at your rebuke,
> disappear gradually. Run different scenarios and see if any of them end
> resembling what we actually observe today.
>
>
got one online (kindle).
>
> > > > > Honestly, you have to do better than this.
>
> > > > We already did, if you read the thread. We seem to have found trees
> > > > in strata where your 'colleagues' have said that strata was formed
> > > > over millions of years. ...
>
> > > Come on. Be 'open minded' and consider the possibility of intrusion.
>
> > Intrustion? Like the tree decided to climb on its own, or grow on its
> > own? You seem to have a major problem with it not rotting, no matter
> > how it 'intruded' eh?
>
> I shouldn't actually have used the term 'intrusion' since it has a quite
> different and specific meaning in geology. But no big deal. You didn't act
> on the mistake, but came up with an infantile straw man instead.
>
stratas and other places that just shouldn't be there by any small
catastrophy or long period of time scenario.
> Speaking of straw men and burried trees. Nobody claims that all sedimentary
> layers take "millions of years" to be laid down. There are many examples of
> rapid burial af trees. Some instances have been documented in 'real time'.
> Nothing mystical or magical going on I can assure you. Wush is the word.
> Stop listening to the likes of Hovind. He's one of the liars.
>
>
trees go up high, independently and get stuck.
>
> > > > ... And if you read all the pertinent threads,
> > > > you will see much more Flood evidence and proof of suddeness vs. eons
> > > > of time in many scenarios.
>
> > > Your 'finds' have all been explained to you and your people ad nauseam,
> > > and
> > > you're not scoring any points by repeating the same debunked arguments.
>
> > They aren't being debunked here. Opinions are not debunkings. That's
> > all that goes on here is just juvenile blatherings, as in ad hominems
> > and wild generalizing's.
>
> They're not mere oppinions. If you'd take the time and read the links people
> provide you will see that they are based on the available scientific
> evidence.
>
>
backup without assuming what you're trying to prove, then you'll get a
listening ear. So far its 0 for 3000.
>
> > > There are people out there working on convincing you and millions of
> > > uneducated, God fearing, unnaturally born sinners, that Flood-geologist
> > > are
> > > making huge advances in their scientific researchs, proving the Flood
> > > really
> > > happened and the atheistic science's pillars of belief are crumbling.
> > > They
> > > want to make sure that you answer to their higher power.
>
> > And that's a bad thing??!! LOL.
>
> Yeah, keep laughing. There never was a mystical global flood, and there
> never will be one. But if you need to believe in one and probably plenty
> like it, in order to stay in line, and don't mind being lied to, be my
> guest. I'm not really laughing, I just have that smug smile on my face, and
> you know there is nothing you can do about it.
>
can start from there, and not make strawmen up about local floods that
are impossible and that they have the same basic Bible account of the
flood. There's a whole lot of water on this earth you can't account
for and science isn't helping you state how it got here...:).
wg
> --
> Malte Runz
Caranx latus
Apr 29, 2012, 11:34:48 AM4/29/12
to
On 4/29/2012 9:14 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:25 am, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 12:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
<snip>
> On Apr 28, 10:25 am, Caranx latus<aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 12:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>> The African Plate is colliding with the Eurasian Plate and one of the
>>>> results of that will be that the Mediterranean will close. No flood
>>>> forced the tectonic plates apart because the plates were never closer to
>>>> each other than they are now.
>>
>>> Stick with your problem. Get the plates to collide, 'naturally', and
>>> get them to form Mt. Everest.
>>
>> I've covered this in more than sufficient detail for anyone with the
>> capacity to think. You're unreachable.
>
> Another convenient out. Like you really have been doing
> stuff...*see??* LOL. You seem to think by reciting some mantra of
> creative- anything can happen when you add an eon to it- theory, that
> you are really doing something. You need to take it where theory
> becomes proof and then logiical.
proven nor logical.
> Your mountain collidings provide no inch by inch play by play much
> less them uplifting. Then you have the audacity to say 'my' top
> marine fossils are being left without lower elevatory fossils. That
> would be YOUR need to prove!
> You deliberately ran from that. Keep
> running!
Caranx latus
Apr 29, 2012, 11:46:06 AM4/29/12
to
are some very effective time lapse videos that demonstrate that:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89sOW-FzolI>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njTjfJcAsBg>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojKRSnCi7-I>
harry k
Apr 29, 2012, 11:59:28 AM4/29/12
to
Harry K
harry k
Apr 29, 2012, 12:01:01 PM4/29/12
to
those bolders were moved by rolling? Where did you get that asinine
idea?
Harry K
harry k
Apr 29, 2012, 12:07:41 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 6:56 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:12 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip a bunch of BS>
> On Apr 28, 7:12 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgetit.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:534570fb-0f6a-47c4...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
> > > > ‘So You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
>
> > Did God make the water appear out of nowhere?
> > Or did he trigger a completely natural event, following the laws of physics
> > as we see them work today?
>
> The Bible says waters above and waters below. Why don't you fill in
> the blanks. No rain or rainbow prior to Noah's flood.
>
>
>
> > > > The waters were standing above the mountains.
>
> > > > At your rebuke they fled,
>
> > Did the water drain away into Earth's interior, did it evaporate into space?
> > Maybe it just vanished magically at His rebuke?
>
> At least the first two.
>
>
>
>
You still haven't explained how there was any light on earth while
that canopy was up there.
Have you forgotten? "Light will not penetrate more than 200 meters of
water". That canopy had to contain a thickness of miles to produce
enough rain to aid in Yeeee Foooooddddee
Harry K
Wombat
Apr 29, 2012, 12:34:52 PM4/29/12
to
places where the glaciers and ice sheets moved entombed rock against
the ground.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages