The Genesis Flood
J M
The Genesis Flood
By Henry Morris
Selected quotes:
The familiar meandering pattern of streams in alluvial valleys primarily
result from side-cutting by local curvilinear water motions.
Occasionally, however, strong meander patterns are found in valleys of
steep gradients and strong rock banks, such as in the San Juan River in
Colorado, as shown here. (Picture of incised meander) This anomaly is
commonly attributed by geologists to a former alluvial blanket that
supposedly once overlaid the rocks and since has been eroded away; the
meander pattern is said to have developed in the normal way on the
alluvium, and then "entrenched" in the underlying rocks when the region
was uplifted. However, such an explanation is highly questionable in
terms of known principles of stream mechanics. It would seem that the
only way in which such strong lateral cutting could take place
simultaneously with down-cutting would be for the banks to be less
resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
John Galt
On 11 Jan 1998 15:19:14 -0500, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>The Genesis Flood
>
> By Henry Morris
>
>Selected quotes:
<Nah - I think not - snip!>
(Yawn)
If someone would name the department and university at which the
author taught and conducted research, then maybe I'd pay a little
serious attention (I admit it's nearly good for a laugh).
At a minimum, the author should have been trained in the following
areas:
1. Hydrology
2. Soil Mechanics (basic and advanced)
3. Open Channel Hydraulics
4. Fluvial Hydraulics
5. Soil Physics
6. Dynamics
Oh, by the way, he should probably have done a bit of scholarly
research that's been published in some peer-reviewer journals - in the
previously-mentioned fields of study, of course - to qualify as an
expert. Does any of this apply, or is this simply one of the more
blatant instances of pseudo-science?
{{{Flush}}}
Mark Bare
WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
Lateral erosion occurs due to the water moving against it...think about the
friction on the part of the water rubbing by the bank as it passes. The
larger the angle of incident with the bank the stronger the eroding power.
Down cutting occurs due to gradient and GRAVITY until the stream reaches
base line. IF UPLIFT OCCURS than the base line is lowered and downcutting
proceeds faster. There are MANY examples of meanders in the world and some
have formed since recorded history. WHY do you think the mississippi must be
shored up all the time. River beds move and create a flood plain.....I am
now going to deep.....take a geology class and try later.
Ding...thank you for playing.
J M wrote in message <34B845...@dcsi.net>...
>The Genesis Flood
>
> By Henry Morris
>
>Selected quotes:
>
>
J M
Mark Bare wrote:
>
> WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
> Lateral erosion occurs due to the water moving against it...think about the
> friction on the part of the water rubbing by the bank as it passes. The
> larger the angle of incident with the bank the stronger the eroding power.
> Down cutting occurs due to gradient and GRAVITY until the stream reaches
> base line. IF UPLIFT OCCURS than the base line is lowered and downcutting
> proceeds faster. There are MANY examples of meanders in the world and some
> have formed since recorded history. WHY do you think the mississippi must be
> shored up all the time. River beds move and create a flood plain.....I am
> now going to deep.....take a geology class and try later.
> Ding...thank you for playing.
>
> J M wrote in message <34B845...@dcsi.net>...
> >The Genesis Flood
Obviously you are not a geologist and did not understand what Morris
said.
Morris is saying that radical could not form unless the material inwhich
it is moving is soft and pliable. That's all. And he's pointing out that this
is what we would expect from the earth after the flood. The sediments
are deposited and as water rushes down hill we allow for some radical
meandering patterns.
Cheerios
JM
Brandon M. Gorte
J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: Mark Bare wrote:
: >
: > WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
You see, The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered Ever Again uses the
best. ;-)
[snip rest]
THE BANTER-LOG
There are people on talk.origins who indulge in confusing and twisting
the issues until they become meaninglees, or end up in a flamefest. Most
of them have no clue what the other Banter-log members are up to. That
is, only a few band together. They attempt to pull off scams either to
cover for the fact that they, the anti-evolutionists or IC's have no
evidence supporting their propaganda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current membership:
Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
Prime Candidates:
Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
Riley Sinder (thought to be a troll) Larry N. Lake
Haven't seen in a while, but deserve some sort of nomination:
Ted Holden Zoner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Gorte
Associate Professor of Morrissic Flood/Brain Geology
University of Ediacara, Talk.Origins
Brandon M. Gorte
:
: By Henry Morris
That is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Please take a geology
class the one whose name shall ne'er be uttered ever again, and then we'll
talk.
Brandon Gorte
Undergrad in Geological Engineering
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
><DARWIN>
L L
J M
> : >
> : > WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
>
> You see, The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered Ever Again uses the
> best. ;-)
>
> [snip rest]
>
> THE BANTER-LOG
>
> There are people on talk.origins who indulge in confusing and twisting
> the issues until they become meaninglees, or end up in a flamefest. Most
Slander.
> of them have no clue what the other Banter-log members are up to. That
> is, only a few band together. They attempt to pull off scams either to
> cover for the fact that they, the anti-evolutionists or IC's have no
> evidence supporting their propaganda.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Current membership:
>
> Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
>
> Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
>
> Prime Candidates:
>
> Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
>
> Riley Sinder (thought to be a troll) Larry N. Lake
>
> Haven't seen in a while, but deserve some sort of nomination:
>
> Ted Holden Zoner
>
This post is just one reason why I don't believe the atheists on this
newsgroup are serious.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Carr
on 12 Jan 1998 13:47:00 -0500, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte)
wrote :
<skip>
> THE BANTER-LOG
>Current membership:
>Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
>Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
>Prime Candidates:
>Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
I wouldn't include Julie Thomas in this list.
Steven Carr ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Brandon M. Gorte
: > J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: > : Mark Bare wrote:
: > : >
: > : > WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
: >
: > best. ;-)
: >
: > [snip rest]
: >
: > THE BANTER-LOG
: >
: > There are people on talk.origins who indulge in confusing and twisting
: > the issues until they become meaninglees, or end up in a flamefest. Most
:
: Slander.
Now how is that any more slander than Nyikos's Bandarlog, or Karl's
Killfile list? You, nameless, induge in twisting issues til they become
meaningless.
: > of them have no clue what the other Banter-log members are up to. That
: > is, only a few band together. They attempt to pull off scams either to
: > cover for the fact that they, the anti-evolutionists or IC's have no
: > evidence supporting their propaganda.
: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: > Current membership:
: >
: > Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
: >
: > Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
: >
: > Prime Candidates:
: >
: > Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
: >
: > Riley Sinder (thought to be a troll) Larry N. Lake
: >
: > Haven't seen in a while, but deserve some sort of nomination:
: >
: > Ted Holden Zoner
: >
: This post is just one reason why I don't believe the atheists on this
: newsgroup are serious.
1. I am not and never claimed to be an atheist
2. You obviously missed the joke.
Brandon M. Gorte
Steven Carr (ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: on 12 Jan 1998 13:47:00 -0500, bmg...@mtu.edu (Brandon M. Gorte)
: wrote :
:
: <skip>
: > THE BANTER-LOG
:
:
: >Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
:
: >Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
:
: >Prime Candidates:
:
: >Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
:
Julie's a candidate by the request of another. It could be removed (I
haven't looked at her posts in a little while). However, Peter's name is
a fixture on the list.
Mr. C.
> The Genesis Flood
>
> By Henry Morris
>
> Selected quotes:
>
>
> The familiar meandering pattern of streams in alluvial valleys primarily
> result from side-cutting by local curvilinear water motions.
> Occasionally, however, strong meander patterns are found in valleys of
> steep gradients and strong rock banks, such as in the San Juan River in
> Colorado, as shown here. (Picture of incised meander) This anomaly is
> commonly attributed by geologists to a former alluvial blanket that
> supposedly once overlaid the rocks and since has been eroded away; the
> meander pattern is said to have developed in the normal way on the
> alluvium, and then "entrenched" in the underlying rocks when the region
> was uplifted. However, such an explanation is highly questionable in
> terms of known principles of stream mechanics. It would seem that the
> only way in which such strong lateral cutting could take place
> simultaneously with down-cutting would be for the banks to be less
> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
JM,
What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
Grand Canyon was formed.
PART 1
When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
there any other models that could be used to explain it零 creation? Part
of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
tributary canyons.
Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
Henry Barwood
J M wrote:
> Obviously you are not a geologist and did not understand what Morris
> said.
Doubtful anyone could.
> Morris is saying that radical could not form unless the material inwhich
> it is moving is soft and pliable.
Which would lead to massive and catastrophic slumping of the saturated
sediments. This would obliterate your meanders.
> That's all.
Imagine Porky Pig saying this and you have the proper level of science
here!
> And he's pointing out that this
> is what we would expect from the earth after the flood. The sediments
> are deposited and as water rushes down hill we allow for some radical
> meandering patterns.
See my answer above. This would not happen, period. Similar events in
the Upper Pennsylvanian led to massive rotated slump blocks along
channels in the Delta. Such NATURAL events are well documented in the
geological record, widely spaced and have NOTHING to so with "the"
flood.
Morris stuff deleted.
Barwood
Henry Barwood
Henry Barwood
Mr. C. wrote:
Garbage, really.
> JM,
> What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
> ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
No science is evident in your post, only regurgitated creationist
babble.
snip
> When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
> the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
> removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
> years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed?
Yes, it is. Any other questions? I didn't think so.
Barwood
Mark Bare
Very intelligent response oh name who we hate to utter.
J M wrote in message <34B9A2...@dcsi.net>...
>Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
>>
>> J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
>> : Mark Bare wrote:
>> : >
>> : > WHAT KIND OF CRACK ARE YOU ON??????
>>
>> You see, The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered Ever Again uses the
>> best. ;-)
>>
>> [snip rest]
>>
>> THE BANTER-LOG
>>
>> There are people on talk.origins who indulge in confusing and twisting
>> the issues until they become meaninglees, or end up in a flamefest. Most
>
>Slander.
>
>> of them have no clue what the other Banter-log members are up to. That
>> is, only a few band together. They attempt to pull off scams either to
>> cover for the fact that they, the anti-evolutionists or IC's have no
>> evidence supporting their propaganda.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>> Current membership:
>>
>> Karl Crawford Mark Harpt The One Whose Name Shall Ne'er Be Uttered
>>
>> Ever Again (nameless aka J<censored>y)
>>
>> Prime Candidates:
>>
>> Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
>>
>> Riley Sinder (thought to be a troll) Larry N. Lake
>>
>> Haven't seen in a while, but deserve some sort of nomination:
>>
>> Ted Holden Zoner
>>
>This post is just one reason why I don't believe the atheists on this
>newsgroup are serious.
Roger Ivie
Much snippage.
In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) writes:
> In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
>> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
>> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> tributary canyons.
> [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very small
timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
it is that we have any topsoil at all?
--
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | Impeach Bob Palmer!
iv...@cc.usu.edu |
http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |
Mr. C.
> Much snippage.
>
> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
(Mr. C.) writes:
> > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> > tributary canyons.
> > [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>
> Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very small
> timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
> it is that we have any topsoil at all?
Some of the ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens eruptions are already turning
to rock. Whats your point?
> --
> -------------------------+------------------------------------------------
> Roger Ivie | Impeach Bob Palmer!
> iv...@cc.usu.edu |
> http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |
Mr. C
ks...@fast.net
Evolution is not full of holes:
it is mostly holes with a
little half-substance here and there. (jw)
jeff wiel
Mr. C. (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
[snoppety dooda]
: JM,
: What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
: ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
: Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
: Grand Canyon was formed.
Ad hominid!!!!!! Brilliant rebutal. Hey, us austaralopithicines gotta
stick together.
: PART 1
: When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
: the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
: removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
: years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
: there any other models that could be used to explain it9s creation? Part
: of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
: that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
: The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
: short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
: multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
: These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
: tributary canyons.
: Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
: present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
: was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
Raven
In article <34B97B...@dcsi.net>, mc...@dcsi.net says...
> Morris is saying that radical could not form unless the material inwhich
> it is moving is soft and pliable.
That would flatten out the meanders and your back to a flat plain.
----------------------------
Creationists can't spell.
"You miss spell words prolifically."
-John McCoy
"Richard, don't you have a dictnary?"
-ksjj (Karl Crawford)
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Avital Pilpel
J M wrote:
> > >The Genesis Flood
>
> Obviously you are not a geologist
<Yawn>
Obviously, neither are you.
Here we go again. Whenever the creationists boneheads find someone,
anyone, with _any_ formal training, that happens to support their
lunacy, they go into the "argument from authority" mode. Morris will now
be quoted ad nauseum [sp?], since he is a "professional", so what he
says _must_ be correct, and any objections are met with the "but you
have no say in this, you are not a professional" self-righteousness
bullshit.
Besides, I never understood why the creationists are so eager to get
scientists on their side. After all, the typical creationist argument is
that scientific theories are "mere belief", not to be trusted, etc...
you can't have it both ways, J M.
> and did not understand what Morris
> said.
ya, ya, we're all complete idiots except for the creationists.
Thomas Scharle
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) opinions on the fossil record and the
Deluge:
"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and
four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with
various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such
distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the
shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate
together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found
apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
"And we find oysters together in very large families, among which
some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating
that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living
when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of
Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be
seen still sticking to the rocks..." [page 29: Codex Leicester, 9
verso]
"Selections from the Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci", ed. Irma A.
Richter, The World's Classics, Oxford University Press
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Avital Pilpel
Mr. C. wrote:
> JM,
> What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
> ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you
> presented.
<cynical mode on>It's due to long experience. Whenever evolutionists
mention science, the creationists either ignore it or say with a
superior air that science is "just a belief" and "not to be trusted",
etc. Talking to a creationist about science is like talking to a broken
record. Ad hominem attacks are, at least, fun.
<cynical mode off>
More seriously speaking, there is no need by the evolutionists to
re-post over and over again the reasons why creationism is claptrap. It
is posted all over the place - for example, in the talk.origin FAQ. You
reposting the same refuted stuff and evolutionists not bothering to
answer it _yet again_ is hardly due to evolutionists "not having an
answer"; it is due to them knowing that however much they will tear the
creationist myth to shreads, it will simply be reposted over and over,
since the creationists are not interested in science or discovery of
truth, but in pushing their agenda.
> I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
> Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which
> the
> Grand Canyon was formed.
>
See what I mean? Geez, not _this_ claptrap _again_. This book and its
"arguments" had been refuted here over and over again. Just check
dejanews: it ha many posts on the subject. Better yet, check any
beginner's geology text and see for yourself how this "theory" does not
fit with the most elementary knowledge we have about geology. Why should
I waste my time answering the same boneheaded theories _yet again_, to
someone who undoubtebly will not listen and just repost the same stuff a
week from now claiming "it has never been refuted"?
Oh, don't tell me - this is "Ad hominem", right? For the creationists,
it seems, anyone saying "you are wrong and here's why" is attacking
_them_; they are insulted by "non-believers", so they see everything as
"ad hominem".
But let me give it a shot.
> PART 1
>
> When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running
> along
> the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
> removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
> years.
One might wonder, but it did just that.
> The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
> there any other models that could be used to explain itšs creation?
Depends what you mean by "explenation". "The tooth fairy created it last
night and changed our memories to think it was laways there" is an
explanation that "explains all the facts" just as well as the
creationist myth. Neither, however, are worth jack shit.
> Part
> of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
>
> that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand
> Canyon.
By _which_ scientists, exactly?
> The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
>
> short period of time.
So does the tooth fairy model.
> During the period of the flood of Noah the
> multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal
> fashion.
Really? So how come all the _older_ rocks _wer _always_ laid _below_ the
younger rocks? How would the ater know the age? And where did all the
water to cover the earth ?
> These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> tributary canyons.
Let me get this straight: You think it is impossibe the erosion created
such a huge canyon during millions of years. But you _do_ consider it
possible that erosion created the _same canyon_ during _a few thousand
years_! Go figure!
> Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
> present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the
> canyon
> was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these
> two
> large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the
> Vernal
> Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand
> Canyon
Oh, I see. erosion is either all-powerful or powerless, depending on
_who_ uses it as an explanation of the Canyon - the creationists or the
evolutionists.
Raven
In article <ksjj-13019...@max6-38.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
says...
> Some of the ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens eruptions are already turning
> to Japaneese. Whats your point?
-----------------------------
Creationists can't think.
"I don't think I can know." - ksjj
"I think not." - ksjj
Chronic Intellectual Masturbator,
Talk Origin's Most Persistent Troll Award 1996
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Kalandros M
Mr. C. wrote:
> In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
> > The Genesis Flood
> >
> > By Henry Morris
> >
> > Selected quotes:
> >
> >
> > The familiar meandering pattern of streams in alluvial valleys primarily
> > result from side-cutting by local curvilinear water motions.
> > Occasionally, however, strong meander patterns are found in valleys of
> > steep gradients and strong rock banks, such as in the San Juan River in
> > Colorado, as shown here. (Picture of incised meander) This anomaly is
> > commonly attributed by geologists to a former alluvial blanket that
> > supposedly once overlaid the rocks and since has been eroded away; the
> > meander pattern is said to have developed in the normal way on the
> > alluvium, and then "entrenched" in the underlying rocks when the region
> > was uplifted. However, such an explanation is highly questionable in
> > terms of known principles of stream mechanics. It would seem that the
> > only way in which such strong lateral cutting could take place
> > simultaneously with down-cutting would be for the banks to be less
> > resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> > formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> > and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
>
> JM,
> What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
> ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
> I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
> Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
> Grand Canyon was formed.
>
> PART 1
>
> When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
> the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
> removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
> years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
> there any other models that could be used to explain it零 creation? Part
> of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
> that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
> The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
> short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> tributary canyons.
> Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
> present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
> was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
How did footprints end up in the MIDDLE of flood strata? If most layers of
rock
are the result of silt settling to the bottom of the floodwaters, these
should not occur.
Maybe if we could tell whether the footprints are from before or after the
flood, we could
actually determine WHICH rock formations are flood strata -- something you'd
think
the creationists would have done by now.
Mike
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>,
Mr. C. <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
>ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
Maybe the "ad-hominid" attack is what wiped out the Neanderthals.
Q. What is "evobabbler" (and come to think of it "idiot") if not an
_ad_hominem_ attack?
>I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
>Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
>Grand Canyon was formed.
Evidence that Karl is certainly *not* thinking when he goes quiet!
<snip>
Martin Smith
Research Associate
School of Molecular and Medical Biosciences
Cardiff University of Wales
Cardiff, UK.
J M
Kalandros M wrote:
>
> Mr. C. wrote:
>
> > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The Genesis Flood
> > >
> > > By Henry Morris
> > >
> > > Selected quotes:
> > >
> > >
> > > The familiar meandering pattern of streams in alluvial valleys primarily
> > > result from side-cutting by local curvilinear water motions.
> > > Occasionally, however, strong meander patterns are found in valleys of
> > > steep gradients and strong rock banks, such as in the San Juan River in
> > > Colorado, as shown here. (Picture of incised meander) This anomaly is
> > > commonly attributed by geologists to a former alluvial blanket that
> > > supposedly once overlaid the rocks and since has been eroded away; the
> > > meander pattern is said to have developed in the normal way on the
> > > alluvium, and then "entrenched" in the underlying rocks when the region
> > > was uplifted. However, such an explanation is highly questionable in
> > > terms of known principles of stream mechanics. It would seem that the
> > > only way in which such strong lateral cutting could take place
> > > simultaneously with down-cutting would be for the banks to be less
> > > resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> > > formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> > > and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> >
> > JM,
> > ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
> > Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
> > Grand Canyon was formed.
> >
> >
> > When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
> > the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
> > removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
> > years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
> > of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
> > that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
> > The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> > tributary canyons.
> > Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
> > present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
> > was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>
> How did footprints end up in the MIDDLE of flood strata? If most layers of
> rock
> are the result of silt settling to the bottom of the floodwaters, these
> should not occur.
>
> Maybe if we could tell whether the footprints are from before or after the
> flood, we could
> actually determine WHICH rock formations are flood strata -- something you'd
> think
> the creationists would have done by now.
Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
creatures who put the footprint there were running, leaving the prints,
the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
prints thus preserving them.
JM
> Mike
Erik Marksberry
On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
>
> Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> creatures who put the footprint there were running,
Running? Creatures in the middle of a flood typically are forced
to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
to lay down footprints?
[snip]
--
Erik Marksberry
Kalandros M
J M wrote:
> Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> creatures who put the footprint there were running, leaving the prints,
> the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
> than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
> prints thus preserving them.
This means that the prints were left in pre-flood earth. Therefore everything
below that
strata is not the result of the flood. Since we find footprints from the
Cretaceous era,
then the fossils from Jurassic, Triassic, etc. are all due to events BEFORE the
flood.
Which leaves quite a lot of strata and fossils to account for.
Mike
James Wallace
> of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
> that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
> The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
> short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> tributary canyons.
> Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
> present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
I don't see any data here either, just opinion, conjecture and hyperbole.
Why would I consider this any more close to the truth than that which you
rale against?
JV
J M
Erik Marksberry wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> >
> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
>
> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
> year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
> to lay down footprints?
>
> [snip]
>
The question was not about running or walking, but how the prints got
preserved. Secondly, if you have water there, two feet deep, it's
doubtful if they'd be swimming. The flood was progressive, you know.
As for the other question, I don't think you understand it. The prints
could have been made after the flood, though, I wasn't there. After the
flood the earth continued to suffer from the ravages of down rushing
water, and other sorts of phenomena. Remember we had a lot of volcanic
action and mountain building.
That's how I understand it.
JM
> --
> Erik Marksberry
James Wallace
Henry Morris, with a doctorate from the University of Minnesota, he
majored in hydraulics and hydrology. He has no academic or professional
experience (at the collegate level at least, maybe he took a juniour or
senior high school class we don't know of) in biology or physics. He is a
hydraulic engineer NOT a scientist, he is however qualified to design and
build dams and elevators.
He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
He has written 45 books on the subject of the bible and providing
scientific proof of its factualness (this is known as circular logic). He
has little or no known articles appearing in peer reviewed publications.
He also has authored several evangelical Christian "tracts" such as "NOT
ONLY CREATOR, BUT SAVIOR OF THE WORLD".
He with Thomas Barnes asserted that "The rate of decay in the geomagnetic
field sets an outside limit of 10,000 years for the age of the earth. ".
Then was thoroughly discredited with proof that only the dipole-field
strength has been 'decaying' for a century and a half... the strength of
the nondipole field (about 15 percent of the total field) has increased
over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost
constant and paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the
geomagnetic field]"(Ecker, 1990, 105).
evidence of the reversals have been found in the magnetic orientation of
rock on the sea floor. Not to mention the egregious irreconcilible
problem of the illogic of assuming that the rate of decay when measured
was always the same. This type of illogic is akin to watching the tide
fall and assuming that it always fell and falls at that rate and this
being true the earth was under water 2 weeks earlier, then proclaiming
the earth to be two weeks old! Rediculous. This is what happens when
hydralic/hydro engineers take a stab at formulating scientific theory. :)
The below statement of Henry Morris demonstrates the prejudice of himself
and the "Institute for Creation
Research" that "genuine facts" support the bible. This is unscientific
theory, to begin with to assume something like "genuine facts of science
support the bible then find proofs to support this considering proofs to
the contrary not genuine therefore discountable is circular logic and
poor theory.
"More explicitly, the administration and faculty of ICR are committed to
the tenets of both
scientific creationism and Biblical creationism as formulated below. A
clear distinction is
drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is
the position of the
Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of
science support the Bible.
ICR maintains that scientific creationism should be taught along with the
scientific aspects of
evolutionism in tax-supported institutions, and that both scientific and
Biblical creationism
should be taught in Christian schools."
JV
In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, mc...@dcsi.net says...
Michael lacy
In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>,
ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) wrote:
>In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
>When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
>the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
>removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
>years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
>there any other models that could be used to explain itšs creation? Part
>of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
>that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
>The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
>short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
>multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
>These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
>tributary canyons.
>Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
>present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
>was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
>large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
>Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>
Shredding this familiar and pathetic scenario point by point would be time
consuming, so I will make just one observation. If the sediments were all
laid down by one event (the so-called Noachian floods) then why are the
majority of the sediments deposited at such high altitudes? Flooding tends
to drive sediments from high ground to low ground, yet the depth of
sedimentation on the highest points of the continents far, far exceeds the
amount of sedimentation in the lowest oceanic floors? Why is this?
Answer: because the oceanic floors are quite new, having been created by
ocean-floor spreading in the (geologically speaking) recent past, while the
continents are millions of years old. The flood myth just doesn't hold
water.
Michael Lacy
J M
Mr. M.J. Smith wrote:
>
> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>,
> Mr. C. <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
I must agree.
> Maybe the "ad-hominid" attack is what wiped out the Neanderthals.
>
> Q. What is "evobabbler" (and come to think of it "idiot") if not an
> _ad_hominem_ attack?
>
> >I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
> >Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
> >Grand Canyon was formed.
>
> Evidence that Karl is certainly *not* thinking when he goes quiet!
Care to offer any real arguments?
J M
Erik Marksberry wrote:
>
> On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> >
> > Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
>
> Running? Creatures in the middle of a flood typically are forced
> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
> year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
> to lay down footprints?
>
> [snip]
This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
could man have survived in this area for so long? Wouldn't he have been
swept away at some time during the deposition of the 8.500 feet of
material? Some place of realtive safety would have been needed during
the early stages of the flood, a place where both men and animals could
find refuge.
To the southwest of Glen Rose lies a possible answer. Almost in the very
center of Texas, Precambrian granitic dome has been forced to the
surface. A nearly circular feature, with a diameter of some 60 miles,
the Llano Uplift forms a stratigraphic high. This highly resistant
basement rock was evidently being uplifted during the beginning stages
of the flood because it received only minimal amounts of the earliest
sediments. The uplift was probably associated with the sinking of the
nearby Gulf of Mexico, maintaining an isostatic balance. The strata on all
sides not only dip away from this feature, due to a combination of uplift
and adjacent subsidence, but pinch out or become thinner as they near
the uplift, indicating that uplift accompanied the deposition and that only
minor amounts of sediments actually were trapped on the rising dome.
Evidently the uplift projected aboce the rising flood waters later than
the surrounding area.
Davis claims:
"During deposition of lowermost Cretaceous sediments, the Llano Uplift
was an island of Pre-Mesozoic rocks covering several hundred square
miles."
The conclusiion seems justified that the Llano Uplift was one of the last
areas to be permanently inundated by the flood. Certainly during the
first few weeks of the flood, as torrential rains poured down, as waters
rose, as the earth shifted, and as areas flooded, men and the more
mobile animals would have sought the highest ground for safety (which in
this reagion would have been the rock mass). Animals of various sorts,
friends and former enemies alike, would have rushed about in near panic
looking for permanent safety. Perhaps the men built rafts in a futile
effort to save themselves.
A temporary lowering of the water level, perhaps due to rapid sinking of
the adjacent Gulf, nearby faulting, tsunamis in other areas of the world,
or any of a number of possible causes would have exposed some of the
recently deposited sediments. In their frantic search for safety, many
animals left the uplift only to later find that the waters returned, even
higher than before. A map of the numerous dinosaur trac locations in the
Glen Rose limestone in Texas indicates that the dinosaurs plodded off in
all directions, leaving their footprints in the fresh sediments as they
went. In fact, the location of the tracks in the Glen Rose Limestone
accurately outlines the fringes of the Ilano Uplife itself.
The rim of the subsiding Gulf of Mexico runs north from the Uplift into
Oklahoma. At the time the Glen Rose Limestone was being deposited,
much of western Texas was completely flooded and the sinking of the
water level to the east exposed thisnorthward trending arch. No doubt
some of the fleeing animals and men followed this natural causeway in
their frantic effor to escape destruction. Only the Upper Cretaceous
beds sem to be continuous on both sides of the arch, but these beds were
to come later.
JM
>
> --
> Erik Marksberry
Henry Barwood
J M wrote:
Big snip to conserve space
> Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> creatures who put the footprint there were running, leaving the prints,
> the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
> than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
> prints thus preserving them.
Of course, ignoring the fact that:
99.99% of the millions of trackways show no evidence of running.
Most icnofossils are bottom dwelling creatures (arthropods, worms,
etc.). Hard to run without feet, JM.
Contortions such as this mess are common to creationists trying to
explain what they do not understand.
Barwood
J M
James Wallace wrote:
>
> Henry Morris, with a doctorate from the University of Minnesota, he
> majored in hydraulics and hydrology. He has no academic or professional
> experience (at the collegate level at least, maybe he took a juniour or
> senior high school class we don't know of) in biology or physics. He is a
> hydraulic engineer NOT a scientist, he is however qualified to design and
> build dams and elevators.
Hydrologist. Henry Morris, former director and founder of the Institute
for Creation Research. Author of five books in the field of hydraulics and
water resources. He has a B.S. from Rice University and M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from the University of Minnesota, with majors in hydrolics and
minors in geology and mathematics. He spent four years in hydraulic
engineering practice and then 28 years as a teacher of hydraulic
engineering and hydrology in five different universities.
For the period of 1951-56 he was Chairman of the Civil Engineering
department at the University of Southwestern Louisiana and then from
1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
Institue and State University. A full member of Sigma Xi, an Honor
Member of Chi Epsilon, and a Member of Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta Pi,
all honorary societies, he is a fellow of the American Society of
Science, and holds professional memberships in the American
Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National
Society of Professional Engineers, the Geochemical Society, the
International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage Research, and
others. Is a member of various other regional and national committees,
and has biographical listings in six different "Who's Who" publications.
Paul J. Koeck
Mr. C. wrote in message ...
>In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>
>> The Genesis Flood
>>
>> By Henry Morris
>>
>> Selected quotes:
>>
>>
>> The familiar meandering pattern of streams in alluvial valleys primarily
>> result from side-cutting by local curvilinear water motions.
>> Occasionally, however, strong meander patterns are found in valleys of
>> steep gradients and strong rock banks, such as in the San Juan River in
>> Colorado, as shown here. (Picture of incised meander) This anomaly is
>> commonly attributed by geologists to a former alluvial blanket that
>> supposedly once overlaid the rocks and since has been eroded away; the
>> meander pattern is said to have developed in the normal way on the
>> alluvium, and then "entrenched" in the underlying rocks when the region
>> was uplifted. However, such an explanation is highly questionable in
>> terms of known principles of stream mechanics. It would seem that the
>> only way in which such strong lateral cutting could take place
>> simultaneously with down-cutting would be for the banks to be less
>> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
>> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
>> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
>
>JM,
>What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
>ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
>I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
>Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
>Grand Canyon was formed.
>
>
>PART 1
>
>When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
>the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
>removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
>years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
>there any other models that could be used to explain itšs creation? Part
>of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
>that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
>The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
>short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
>multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
>These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
>tributary canyons.
>Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
>present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
>was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
>large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
>Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>
Good grief. Do you have any concept whatsoever of the length of time
actually required to form rock from sedimentation. It requires millions
of years (At least hundreds of thousands) and intense pressure to do so.
It most certainly cannot happen in less than a year. What you've
posted is not an alternative model of how it could have happened. It's
pure fantasy based on a complete lack of knowledge of geological processes.
-----------
Paul J. Koeck, #360
Only an idiot or a dishonest PromiseKeeper would think
that my opinions necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Reverse the following to reply to me:
moc.arevamirP@kceoKP
Paul J. Koeck
Mr. C. wrote in message ...
>In article <xKSkkq...@cc.usu.edu>, iv...@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) wrote:
>
>> Much snippage.
>>
>> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
>(Mr. C.) writes:
>> > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>> >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
>> >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still
soft
>> >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
>> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
>> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal
fashion.
>> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
>> > tributary canyons.
>> > [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these
two
>> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
>> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand
Canyon
>>
>> Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very
small
>> timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
>> it is that we have any topsoil at all?
>
>Some of the ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens eruptions are already turning
>to rock. Whats your point?
Err....Not quite. They're turning to dried mud. Big difference.
>
>
>> --
>> -------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
-
>> Roger Ivie | Impeach Bob Palmer!
>> iv...@cc.usu.edu |
>> http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |
>
>
>Mr. C
>ks...@fast.net
>
> Evolution is not full of holes:
> it is mostly holes with a
> little half-substance here and there. (jw)
>
-----------
Kalandros M
J M wrote:
> Erik Marksberry wrote:
> >
> > On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> > > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
> >
Meaning that the Glen Rose uplift actually consists of pre-flood strata. So
how do you explain the fossils below this strata? In particular, according
to the above, Pre-Mesozoic fossils are pre-flood remains. So where
did these fossils come from?
How can this be "one of the last" places covered by the flood when so
much of the world (Rockies, Himalayas, etc.) are higher than Glen
Rose Texas?
Mike
Adrian Barnett
> Henry Barwood spake thusly :-
>J M wrote:
>Big snip to conserve space
>> Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
>> creatures who put the footprint there were running, leaving the prints,
>> the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
>> than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
>> prints thus preserving them.
>Of course, ignoring the fact that:
>99.99% of the millions of trackways show no evidence of running.
>Most icnofossils are bottom dwelling creatures (arthropods, worms,
>etc.). Hard to run without feet, JM.
>Contortions such as this mess are common to creationists trying to
>explain what they do not understand.
Forget about footprints.
I'm still waiting for them to explain how dessication cracks can form
during a flood...
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
The blade of grass that does not bend with the wind
bends the wind around itself.
Adrian Barnett
> J M spake thusly :-
Wowee!
All that, and he *still* believes creationist nonsense.
He should sue.
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
WARNING: Intel Inside
Adrian Barnett
> J M spake thusly :-
>>
>> On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
>> >
>> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
>>
>> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
>> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
>> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
>> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
>> year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
>> to lay down footprints?
>>
>> [snip]
>This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
>How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
Who gives a shit what Morris says? Isn't this the same Morris who thinks
that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during the Flood.
There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not understand?
Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why all the
geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists etc. have got it
all wrong.
There is NO EVIDENCE!
There was no flood. Deal with it.
Henry Barwood
J M wrote:
> Hydrologist. Henry Morris,
snip
> from
> 1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
> Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
> Institue and State University.
Yes, he was well remembered at VPI even when I was a student there (PhD
1980) as the fellow who founded ICR, not as a hydrologist.
> A full member of Sigma Xi...
Oh come on, JM, WTH does membership in societies have to do with
science? I'm a member of Sigma Xi, etc., also. Means zip to anyone.
Credentials do not the scientist make, unless you are testifying in
court.
Barwood
Dennis Curran
Mr. C. wrote:
>
> In article <xKSkkq...@cc.usu.edu>, iv...@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) wrote:
>
> > Much snippage.
> >
> > In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (Mr. C.) writes:
> > > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> > >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> > >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> > >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> > > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> > > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> > > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> > > tributary canyons.
> > > [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> > > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> > > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
> >
> > Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very small
> > timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
> > it is that we have any topsoil at all?
>
> Some of the ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens eruptions are already turning
> to rock. Whats your point?
DMC->What's *YOUR* point? *IF* (and what a big if!) it is turning to
rock that is *IGNEOUS* rock, which has less than nothing to do with
*SEDIMENTARY* rock. You *DO* know the difference!?
--
Dennis Curran
Comments and questions are welcome and will be answered ASAP.
Insults and flames are ignored.
********************************************************
* *
* "All our science, measured against reality, is *
* primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most *
* precious thing we have." *
* *
* Albert Einstein *
* *
********************************************************
Dennis Curran
Roger Ivie wrote:
>
> Much snippage.
>
> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) writes:
> > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> > tributary canyons.
> > [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>
> Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very small
> timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
> it is that we have any topsoil at all?
DMC->And while your explaining how unconsolidated sediment turned into
solid rock in less than 500 years.... Explain why the sedimentary rocks
in the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon are tilted approximately 45
degrees to the horizontal sedimentary rocks in the upper Canyon. Did all
the "evobabblers" sneak in one night with big hydraulic jacks and
crowbars? Karl, have you even *SEEN* the geological column of the Grand
Canyon?
Dennis Curran
J M wrote:
>
> Mr. M.J. Smith wrote:
> >
> > In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>,
> > Mr. C. <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >
> > >ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
>
>
> > Maybe the "ad-hominid" attack is what wiped out the Neanderthals.
> >
> > Q. What is "evobabbler" (and come to think of it "idiot") if not an
> > _ad_hominem_ attack?
>
> >
> > >Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
> > >Grand Canyon was formed.
> >
>
> Care to offer any real arguments?
>
cycle. Shoot one creationists argument full of holes and less than a
month later another one shows up with the *EXACT* same nonsense! Go see
my reply to Creation Geology and RE: Currans arguments. Its all been
done before!
J M
Henry Barwood wrote:
>
> J M wrote:
>
> > Hydrologist. Henry Morris,
>
> snip
>
> > 1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
> > Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
> > Institue and State University.
>
> 1980) as the fellow who founded ICR, not as a hydrologist.
>
> > A full member of Sigma Xi...
>
> Oh come on, JM, WTH does membership in societies have to do with
> science? I'm a member of Sigma Xi, etc., also. Means zip to anyone.
> Credentials do not the scientist make, unless you are testifying in
> court.
>
> Barwood
considered important for various reasons.
JM
Michael lacy
In article <34BACB...@dcsi.net>,
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Kalandros M wrote:
>>
>> Mr. C. wrote:
>> > When one looks at the Grand Canyon with the Colorado river running along
>> > the bottom, one wonders if the river really created the canyon by the
>> > removal of hard rock 1.7 miles deep through erosion over millions of
>> > years. The question remains, is this how the Grand Canyon formed? Is
>> > there any other models that could be used to explain itšs creation? Part
>> > of the answer is *yes*, there are other models conceived by scientist
>> > that help us in our understanding of the formation of the grand Canyon.
>> > The Creation/flood Model shows us how the Grand Canyon was formed in a
>> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
>> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
>> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
>> > tributary canyons.
>> > Geologist have discovered the remains of three large lakes near the
>> > present day Grand Canyon which aid in our understanding of how the canyon
>> > was formed. Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
>> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
>> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>>
>> How did footprints end up in the MIDDLE of flood strata? If most layers of
>> rock
>> are the result of silt settling to the bottom of the floodwaters, these
>> should not occur.
>>
>> Maybe if we could tell whether the footprints are from before or after the
>> flood, we could
>> actually determine WHICH rock formations are flood strata -- something you'd
>> think
>> the creationists would have done by now.
>
>Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
>creatures who put the footprint there were running, leaving the prints,
>the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
>than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
>prints thus preserving them.
Running underwater???
Hahahahaha.....
You creationists never fail to amaze me with your complete lack of critical
analysis or even common sense. Pull the other one.
Mike Lacy
David Johnston
Mr. C. wrote:
>
> In article <xKSkkq...@cc.usu.edu>, iv...@cc.usu.edu (Roger Ivie) wrote:
>
> > Much snippage.
> >
> > In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net
> (Mr. C.) writes:
> > > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> > >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
> > >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
> > >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
> > > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
> > > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
> > > tributary canyons.
> > > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
> > > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
> >
> > timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
> > it is that we have any topsoil at all?
>
> to rock. Whats your point?
Really? What kind of rock?
> > --
> > -------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Mark Bare
Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
J M wrote in message <34BB35...@dcsi.net>...
>Henry Barwood wrote:
>>
>> J M wrote:
>>
>> > Hydrologist. Henry Morris,
>>
>> snip
>>
>> > from
>> > 1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
>> > Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
>> > Institue and State University.
>>
J M
Mark Bare wrote:
>
> Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
> was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
> geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
in the ocean speaks to the same.
Cheerios,
JM
> J M wrote in message <34BB35...@dcsi.net>...
> >Henry Barwood wrote:
> >>
> >> J M wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hydrologist. Henry Morris,
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> > from
> >> > 1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
> >> > Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
> >> > Institue and State University.
> >>
Avital Pilpel
J M wrote:
> General academic excellence and membership in institutions is
> generally
> considered important for various reasons.
>
> JM
The usual argument from authority. Of all the nobel prize winners, say,
how many were/are creationists? None? Thought so. Since "General
academic excellence" does not get any higher than that, guess you must
now say that creationism is bosh, by your own argument.
Geez, I don't know why I bother. Like all creationist boneheads, J M
will simply refuse to see the major logical and scientific holes in his
laughable theories and instead concentrate on nit-picking any occasional
mistake he finds in other's posts and making excuses.
J M
Adrian Barnett wrote:
>
> > J M spake thusly :-
> All that, and he *still* believes creationist nonsense.
> He should sue.
Real intelligent.
J M
Adrian Barnett wrote:
>
> > J M spake thusly :-
> >>
> >> On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> >> >
> >> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
> >>
> >> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> >> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> >> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> >> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
> >> year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
> >> to lay down footprints?
> >>
> >> [snip]
>
> >This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
>
> >How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
>
> Who gives a shit what Morris says? Isn't this the same Morris who thinks
> that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!! LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!
Note the following:
If person A says he believes in angels and devils, then if he says he
believes 2+2 then don't believe him because he says angels and devils
exist.
END OF LOGIC FLAW ALERT.
> It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during the Flood.
> There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not understand?
>
> Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why all the
> geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists etc. have got it
> all wrong.
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE!
Coming from a guy who hasn't read the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.
> There was no flood. Deal with it.
>
> --
J M
Henry Barwood wrote:
>
> J M wrote:
>
>
> > the flood brought in additional sediments that were slightly different
> > than the one in which the prints were made. This material filled the
> > prints thus preserving them.
>
>
> 99.99% of the millions of trackways show no evidence of running.
I gave running as an example of how prints are preserved.
> Most icnofossils are bottom dwelling creatures (arthropods, worms,
> etc.). Hard to run without feet, JM.
>
> Contortions such as this mess are common to creationists trying to
> explain what they do not understand.
>
> Barwood
J M
Kalandros M wrote:
>
> J M wrote:
>
> > Erik Marksberry wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> > > >
> > > > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
> > >
> > > to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> > > it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> > > relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> > > were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
> > > year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
> > > to lay down footprints?
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
> >
> > How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
After Morris' explanation I can only consider your questions as a minor
mystery.
> Mike
J M
Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> J M wrote:
>
> > General academic excellence and membership in institutions is
> > generally
> > considered important for various reasons.
> >
> > JM
>
> The usual argument from authority. Of all the nobel prize winners, say,
> how many were/are creationists? None? Thought so. Since "General
> academic excellence" does not get any higher than that, guess you must
> now say that creationism is bosh, by your own argument.
If you have to be a nobel winner to believe the truth, well I'll be. I guess
they used to say things like that during Galileo's time.
> Geez, I don't know why I bother. Like all creationist boneheads, J M
> will simply refuse to see the major logical and scientific holes in his
> laughable theories and instead concentrate on nit-picking any occasional
> mistake he finds in other's posts and making excuses.
>From your appeal to authority - I don't know.
Avital Pilpel
J M wrote:
> I guess
> they used to say things like that during Galileo's time.
>
Another typical creationist technique. I see argument from authority did
not work as you expected, so you are going for the "They laughed at
Galileo" trick -a.k.a. the "false analogy" trick. Well, they laughed at
the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at the Marx brothers. Does
this mean that the Marx brothers scientific view (presuming they had
one) was correct?
The fact that people laugh at your theory does not give it any
credibility, just becasue at some time people laughed at Galileo. People
would _still_ be laughing at Galileo today, and rightly so, if
scientific investigation had not shown him to be correct. People laugh
at theories that have no evidence for them, and stop laughing when there
is evidence.
You, on the other hand, now want us to just believe what you say
_because_ people laugh at your theories, _instead_ of showing evidence.
Sorry, it does not work that way. You want us to stop laughing? Show
some serious scientific work that supports your view. You have so far
given no evidence that was not immeidatelly shot to hell.
BTW, I told a few people 2+2=5. They laughed. I guess this shows 2+2=5
- after all, they laughed at Galileo too, didn't they?
> From your appeal to authority - I don't know.
So "appealing to authority" is OK if done by you and wrong if done by
me, in your opinion?
And, as you obviously missed the point, I was _not_ appealing to
authority. I was showing that _your_ appeal to authority is not only
without merit as a method, but is even self-destructive to _your_
agneda, since the absolute most (by far) of scientific authorities are
evolutiuonists.
Adrian Barnett
> J M spake thusly :-
>>
>> Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
>> was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
>> geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
>Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
>wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
>underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
>accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
>problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
>faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
>a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
>in the ocean speaks to the same.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
You're beginning to sound like Boatwright, in your utter ignorance.
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
Here Spambot! Here ya' go boy:
webmaster@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@localhost
Fetch that little spam right back to your host now, ya' hear?
Adrian Barnett
> J M spake thusly :-
>>
>> > J M spake thusly :-
>> >>
>> >> On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
>> >> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
>> >>
>> >> Running? Creatures in the middle of a flood typically are
>> >> forced
>> >> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
>> >> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
>> >> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
>> >> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost
>> >> a year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN
>> >> manage to lay down footprints?
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
>>
>> >How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
>>
>> that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
>LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!! LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!
>Note the following:
> If person A says he believes in angels and devils, then if he says he
>believes 2+2 then don't believe him because he says angels and devils
>exist.
>END OF LOGIC FLAW ALERT.
You're correct. Just because Morris believes dozens of insane things does
not mean that he might be wrong about the Flood.
It's just a happy co-incidence.
>> It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during the
>> Flood. There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not understand?
>>
>> Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why all
>> the geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists etc. have
>> got it all wrong.
>>
>> There is NO EVIDENCE!
>Coming from a guy who hasn't read the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.
What's the point? The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and Noah's Flood
never happened.
The Egyptians sincerely believed that the Earth was created by one of their
Gods masturbating. I guess no-one should dismiss that either, eh?
Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that the earth is <10000 years
old and was totally flooded a few thousand years ago?
I say again :
>> There was no flood. Deal with it.
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
Spook Bait V1.2
clinton canter scientology red mercury sex ira aurora ebe whitehouse
Michael lacy
In article <34BB7E...@dcsi.net>,
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Kalandros M wrote:
snip
>> how do you explain the fossils below this strata? In particular, according
>> to the above, Pre-Mesozoic fossils are pre-flood remains. So where
>> did these fossils come from?
>>
>> How can this be "one of the last" places covered by the flood when so
>> much of the world (Rockies, Himalayas, etc.) are higher than Glen
>> Rose Texas?
>
>After Morris' explanation I can only consider your questions as a minor
>mystery.
One man's 'minor mystery' is everyone elses 'gaping logical flaw that sinks
the flood theory.'
Your intellectual curiosity is a wonder to behold.
Michael Lacy
Michael lacy
In article <1403.318T2106T6715282@spam_be_gone.demon.co.uk>,
"Adrian Barnett" <adrian@spam_be_gone.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> J M spake thusly :-
>>Mark Bare wrote:
>>>
>>> Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
>>> was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
>>> geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
>
>>Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
>>wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
>>underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
>>accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
>>problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
>>faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
>>a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
>>in the ocean speaks to the same.
Plate tectonics, along with most other aspects of reality, probably does
not have much bearing on Morris' book - because it is was written by a
creationist twit!
As for you ignorant comments upon the mechanics of plate tectonics, about
which you obviously known nothing, I suggest you try reading a high-school
geology book before babbling such nonsense.
A. Ther _are_ accumulations of sediments at plate subduction zones - in
fact, if my college geology is correct, Japan is made of primarily of these
formations. And as for erosion caused by plate subjection, it is more than
offset by the vulcanism that is produced when the ocean floors are pulled
under the continental crust and heated. That is why the the Pacific ocean
is surrounded by volcanic regions (the 'ring of fire'). The material that
is subducted is recylced into new mountian ranges, like the Andes.
Michael Lacy
Mr. M.J. Smith
>> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>,
>> Mr. C. <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>> >What really amazes me is the way inwhich the evobabblers switch to
>> >ad-hominid attacks instead of using science to refute what you presented.
>I must agree.
>> Maybe the "ad-hominid" attack is what wiped out the Neanderthals.
>>
>> Q. What is "evobabbler" (and come to think of it "idiot") if not an
>> _ad_hominem_ attack?
>> >I hope the following material from the book Grand Canyon Monument to
>> >Catastrophe is a help in your understanding of the real way in which the
>> >Grand Canyon was formed.
>> Evidence that Karl is certainly *not* thinking when he goes quiet!
>Care to offer any real arguments?
About Karl not thinking? Sure, just browse through his posts.
About footprints being left in the sand during a forty day global
deluge with eruptions from 'fountains of the deep', "mountain building"
and ocean floor sinking? Just *who* do you think was paddling on the
beach during this? As Edmund Blackadder said, "Run away from the hills,
as fast as we can!!!"
Martin Smith
Research Associate
School of Molecular and Medical Biosciences
Cardiff University of Wales
Cardiff, UK.
Mr. M.J. Smith
>This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
>To the southwest of Glen Rose lies a possible answer. Almost in the very
>center of Texas, Precambrian granitic dome has been forced to the
>surface. A nearly circular feature, with a diameter of some 60 miles,
>the Llano Uplift forms a stratigraphic high. This highly resistant
>basement rock was evidently being uplifted during the beginning stages
>of the flood because it received only minimal amounts of the earliest
>sediments. The uplift was probably associated with the sinking of the
>nearby Gulf of Mexico, maintaining an isostatic balance.
Which is curious, because mountain building and ocean floor sinking
is also claimed to have been a mechanism by which the floode waters
were drained.
Michael lacy
In article <34BB7F...@dcsi.net>,
J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Adrian Barnett wrote:
>>
>> > J M spake thusly :-
>> >Erik Marksberry wrote:
>> Who gives a shit what Morris says? Isn't this the same Morris who thinks
>> that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
>
>
>LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!! LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!
>
>Note the following:
>
> If person A says he believes in angels and devils, then if he says he
>believes 2+2 then don't believe him because he says angels and devils
>exist.
>
>END OF LOGIC FLAW ALERT.
Now, now, J.M, if you can argue from authority - listing all of Morris'
credintals instead of his arguments - then I think Marksberry is justified
in pointing out that Morris' track record has some, how shall we put it -
less than scientific conclusions.
Michael Lacy
Henry Barwood
J M wrote:
> General academic excellence and membership in institutions is generally
> considered important for various reasons.
Yes, they look good on a resume. In the real world, they still mean
squat. You know what an employed PhD says these days? Do you want fries
with that, sir?
Barwood
Henry Barwood
J M wrote:
> Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
> wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
> underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
> accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
> problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
> faster then current rates.
1) the sediments are being subducted, how does that have anything to do
with a young Earth?
2) What in the world are you talking about "friction would erode..." .
That is about the dumbest statment I've ever heard. A continental
collision does not "abrade" the continents like rubbing sandpaper on
something.
> This additionally works toward substantiating
> a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
> in the ocean speaks to the same.
How do sediments on the ocean floor that date back to the Cretaceous
substantiate a young Earth. Not hardly!
Barwood
>
> Cheerios,
>
> JM
>
> > J M wrote in message <34BB35...@dcsi.net>...
> > >Henry Barwood wrote:
> > >>
> > >> J M wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hydrologist. Henry Morris,
> > >>
> > >> snip
> > >>
> > >> > from
> > >> > 1957 through 1970 he served as Professor of Hydraulic engineering And
> > >> > Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
> > >> > Institue and State University.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, he was well remembered at VPI even when I was a student there (PhD
> > >> 1980) as the fellow who founded ICR, not as a hydrologist.
> > >>
> > >> > A full member of Sigma Xi...
> > >>
> > >> Oh come on, JM, WTH does membership in societies have to do with
> > >> science? I'm a member of Sigma Xi, etc., also. Means zip to anyone.
> > >> Credentials do not the scientist make, unless you are testifying in
> > >> court.
> > >>
> > >> Barwood
> > >General academic excellence and membership in institutions is generally
> > >considered important for various reasons.
> > >
> > >JM
> > >
> > >
David Iain Greig
Dennis Curran <DMCU...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Roger Ivie wrote:
>>
>> Much snippage.
>>
>> In article <ksjj-12019...@max12-08.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (Mr. C.) writes:
>> > In article <34B845...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>> >> resistant than the bed, and this implies that most of the meander
>> >> formation must have taken place when the horizontal beds were still soft
>> >> and unconsolidated, soon after deposition during the Flood period.
>> > short period of time. During the period of the flood of Noah the
>> > multiple sedimentary rock strata were laid down in a horizontal fashion.
>> > These layers were then eroded away quickly forming the canyon and its
>> > tributary canyons.
>> > [[[ snip ]]]Before the rocks had a chance to harden completely these two
>> > large lakes, the Grand Lake (Canyonlands Lake) Hopi Lake and the Vernal
>> > Lake drained through the area and rapidly gorged out the Grand Canyon
>>
>> Alright, two of you have said that sediments turn into rock on a very small
>> timescale (a few thousand years). Would either of you care to explain how
>> it is that we have any topsoil at all?
>
>solid rock in less than 500 years.... Explain why the sedimentary rocks
>in the inner gorge of the Grand Canyon are tilted approximately 45
>degrees to the horizontal sedimentary rocks in the upper Canyon. Did all
>the "evobabblers" sneak in one night with big hydraulic jacks and
>crowbars? Karl, have you even *SEEN* the geological column of the Grand
>Canyon?
Karl's model says the Great Unconformity is the base of the Flood's
erosion. Pre-existing strata were deformed by the eruption of the
waters of the deep. Since there are no fossils (excepting maybe
stromatolites) below the Great Unconformity, it's pre-Flood marine
strata.
I wish people would try to think out of ther box. :)
--D.
Brandon M. Gorte
J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: Mark Bare wrote:
: >
: > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
: > was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
: > geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
: Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
: underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
: accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
: problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
: in the ocean speaks to the same.
No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
Get your facts straight before you post, J<censored>y.
Brandon Gorte
Undergrad in Geological Engineering
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI
><DARWIN>
L L
Kalandros M
J M wrote:
> Kalandros M wrote:
> >
> > J M wrote:
> >
> > > Erik Marksberry wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 13 Jan 1998, J M wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> > > > > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
> > > >
> > > > Running? Creatures in the middle of a flood typically are forced
> > > > to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> > > > it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> > > > relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> > > > were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost a
> > > > year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN manage
> > > > to lay down footprints?
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
> > >
> > > How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
> > > could man have survived in this area for so long? Wouldn't he have been
> > > swept away at some time during the deposition of the 8.500 feet of
> > > material? Some place of realtive safety would have been needed during
> > > the early stages of the flood, a place where both men and animals could
> > > find refuge.
> > > To the southwest of Glen Rose lies a possible answer. Almost in the very
> > > center of Texas, Precambrian granitic dome has been forced to the
> > > surface. A nearly circular feature, with a diameter of some 60 miles,
> > > the Llano Uplift forms a stratigraphic high. This highly resistant
> > > basement rock was evidently being uplifted during the beginning stages
> > > of the flood because it received only minimal amounts of the earliest
> > > sediments. The uplift was probably associated with the sinking of the
> > how do you explain the fossils below this strata? In particular, according
> > to the above, Pre-Mesozoic fossils are pre-flood remains. So where
> > did these fossils come from?
> >
> > How can this be "one of the last" places covered by the flood when so
> > much of the world (Rockies, Himalayas, etc.) are higher than Glen
> > Rose Texas?
>
> After Morris' explanation I can only consider your questions as a minor
> mystery.
>
> > Mike
Try Morris' speculation w/ no evidence that that's what really happened.
More to the point, though, fossils are claimed to be the remains of animals
caught in the flood. Morris' claims leave a large amount of fossils in pre-
flood strata. So how did those fossils get there if they were pre-flood?
Mike
James Wallace
In article <34BAE9...@dcsi.net>, mc...@dcsi.net says...
> James Wallace wrote:
> >
> > Henry Morris, with a doctorate from the University of Minnesota, he
> > majored in hydraulics and hydrology. He has no academic or professional
> > experience (at the collegate level at least, maybe he took a juniour or
> > senior high school class we don't know of) in biology or physics. He is a
> > hydraulic engineer NOT a scientist, he is however qualified to design and
> > build dams and elevators.
>
> Hydrologist. Henry Morris, former director and founder of the Institute
> for Creation Research. Author of five books in the field of hydraulics and
> water resources. He has a B.S. from Rice University and M.S. and Ph.D.
> degrees from the University of Minnesota, with majors in hydrolics and
> minors in geology and mathematics. He spent four years in hydraulic
> engineering practice and then 28 years as a teacher of hydraulic
> engineering and hydrology in five different universities.
> For the period of 1951-56 he was Chairman of the Civil Engineering
> Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic
> Member of Chi Epsilon, and a Member of Phi Beta Kappa and Tau Beta Pi,
> all honorary societies, he is a fellow of the American Society of
> Science, and holds professional memberships in the American
> Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National
> Society of Professional Engineers, the Geochemical Society, the
> International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage Research, and
> others. Is a member of various other regional and national committees,
> and has biographical listings in six different "Who's Who" publications.
>
Why would a person with no training or credentials in Meteorology join
the American Meteorological Society? For the same reason that person
joins the other open societies unrelated to his field ie; hydraulic
engineering, an attempt to lend credence to his facade most probably.
This speaks to his credibility. The guy is a zealot whose work is out of
his field and he admits his conclusions are based on the prejudice that
"all genuine scientific facts support the bible" his words,not mine.
Since he begins with prejudice and assumption his conclsions are suspect
Just as if someone said all "genuine fact" agrees with the Vedas or any
other texts. :)
> > He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
> > Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
> > He has written 45 books on the subject of the bible and providing
> > scientific proof of its factualness (this is known as circular logic). He
> > has little or no known articles appearing in peer reviewed publications.
> > He also has authored several evangelical Christian "tracts" such as "NOT
> > ONLY CREATOR, BUT SAVIOR OF THE WORLD".
> >
> > He with Thomas Barnes asserted that "The rate of decay in the geomagnetic
> > field sets an outside limit of 10,000 years for the age of the earth. ".
> > Then was thoroughly discredited with proof that only the dipole-field
> > strength has been 'decaying' for a century and a half... the strength of
> > the nondipole field (about 15 percent of the total field) has increased
> > over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost
> > constant and paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the
> > geomagnetic field]"(Ecker, 1990, 105).
> > evidence of the reversals have been found in the magnetic orientation of
> > rock on the sea floor. Not to mention the egregious irreconcilible
> > problem of the illogic of assuming that the rate of decay when measured
> > was always the same. This type of illogic is akin to watching the tide
J M
Obviously what you have read about Morris has greatly upset. His
credentials are impressive. As a hydraulic engineer he has to do know a
great deal about rivers and how they develop. This is essential in
building bridges and dams. His minor in geology certainly helps in this
respect. If you want to do some research you will find that the
originators of the evolution, for the most part, were qualified in their
fields. Since these people are the pillars of evolution, I guess we should
reject their findings. As I recall Darwin himself was not qualified to
write his book. (But we'll over look that because he's our hero? Right.)
Additionally, if you have the degree and training in science, I don't think
you have to get every degree possible just to speak in other areas of
science so long as you are able to do the research. Lastly, this debate
that we're fighting is called Ad hominem. You're attacking Morris rather
than his arguments.
The guy is a zealot whose work is out of
> his field and he admits his conclusions are based on the prejudice that
> "all genuine scientific facts support the bible" his words,not mine.
> Since he begins with prejudice and assumption his conclsions are suspect
> Just as if someone said all "genuine fact" agrees with the Vedas or any
> other texts. :)
Whether or not you like his phrase "all genuine scientific facts support
the bible" does not discredit him. Let's see, argument by ridicule. It's in
his arguments (which you are evidently ignoring) that establish his
premise. By effectively ignoring his arguments which you find too
powerful to deal with, you are attempting an easy way out to refute his
point of view. In my opinion you should avoid ad hominem and ridicule
and focus on his arguments.
> > > He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
> > > Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
The institute is accredited.
> > > He has written 45 books on the subject of the bible and providing
> > > scientific proof of its factualness (this is known as circular logic). He
Still avoiding his arguments.
> > > has little or no known articles appearing in peer reviewed publications.
But he has written a textbook that has been used in many colleges.
> > > He also has authored several evangelical Christian "tracts" such as "NOT
> > > ONLY CREATOR, BUT SAVIOR OF THE WORLD".
He also appears in who's who.
> > > He with Thomas Barnes asserted that "The rate of decay in the geomagnetic
> > > field sets an outside limit of 10,000 years for the age of the earth. ".
> > > Then was thoroughly discredited with proof that only the dipole-field
> > > strength has been 'decaying' for a century and a half... the strength of
> > > the nondipole field (about 15 percent of the total field) has increased
> > > over the same time span, so that the total field has remained almost
> > > constant and paleomagnetic evidence of fluctuations and reversals [in the
> > > geomagnetic field]"(Ecker, 1990, 105).
The debate goes on in regard to this. Why do you announce this as finale?
> > > evidence of the reversals have been found in the magnetic orientation of
> > > rock on the sea floor. Not to mention the egregious irreconcilible
> > > problem of the illogic of assuming that the rate of decay when measured
> > > was always the same. This type of illogic is akin to watching the tide
If you're so smart why do you use ad hominem, ridicule, information
that's not related, attack his religious faith, etc? Sir Isaac Newton
wrote tons of material on Biblical prophecy alone. Yet he is considered to
have been the greatest scientist that ever lived. This discredits your
attack on Morris' faith. Incidentally, just to make it clear to you what I
just did, simply what I did was:
Your statement:
Someone who believes the Bible cannot be proficient in science.
My statement:
Issac Newton believes the Bible and was considered to be the greatest
scientist who has ever lived.
Have a good day,
JM
J M
Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
>
> J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
> : Mark Bare wrote:
> : >
> : > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
> : > was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
> : > geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
> :
> : Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
> : wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
> : underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
> : accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
> : problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
> : faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
> : a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
> : in the ocean speaks to the same.
>
> No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
> oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
> oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
Ha,ha, oops. Sorry. Let me get this straight. You said that the
Continental crust is lighter than oceanic crust and therefore it will float
on top of any suducting oceanic crust - so therefore there is no
erosion?? Did you actually say that or am I dreaming? Perhaps the
continental crust is a large plate full of large caves full of helium. This
causes the continents to rise and....bosh, what kind of nonsense are we
getting into? Oh well, you're answer speaks for itself.
JM
J M
Good question. I'm not John Morris so Ican't answer that question for
you.
JM
Adrian Barnett
> Kalandros M spake thusly :-
>J M wrote:
>> Kalandros M wrote:
>> >
>> > J M wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
>> > >
>> > > How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
>> > > could man have survived in this area for so long? Wouldn't he have been
>> > > swept away at some time during the deposition of the 8.500 feet of
[ICR babble snipped]
>> > > frantic effor to escape destruction. Only the Upper Cretaceous beds sem
>> > > to be continuous on both sides of the arch, but these beds were to come
>> > > later.
>> > >
>> > > JM
>> > Meaning that the Glen Rose uplift actually consists of pre-flood
>> > strata. So
>> >
>> > how do you explain the fossils below this strata? In particular,
>> > according to the above, Pre-Mesozoic fossils are pre-flood remains. So
>> > where did these fossils come from?
>> >
>> > How can this be "one of the last" places covered by the flood when so
>> > much of the world (Rockies, Himalayas, etc.) are higher than Glen
>> > Rose Texas?
>>
>> After Morris' explanation I can only consider your questions as a minor
>> mystery.
>>
>> > Mike
> Try Morris' speculation w/ no evidence that that's what really happened.
>More to the point, though, fossils are claimed to be the remains of animals
>caught in the flood. Morris' claims leave a large amount of fossils in pre-
>flood strata. So how did those fossils get there if they were pre-flood?
Ooh! Ooh! Let me try!
[puts on the patented ICR "Stupometron Helmet"]
<ahem>
The so-called pre-flood fossils were obviously pounded down into the
earlier sediments by the force of the downpour of the Deluge. The earlier
sediments were still soft as the Earth was only a couple of thousand years
old then.
[removes helmet, feels sense and reason flowing back]
How was that?
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
"I used to be an intellectual like you. But I quit." Jim Nichols, alt.atheism
Kalandros M
J M wrote:
OK. The disproof of evolution based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamicsis completely
and flatly wrong. He should now better. All the engineers
I know have had at least 2 semester of undergrad physics, and I know
Thermo is covered there. His complete misrepresentation of the 2nd
Law leads me to believe he is incompetent, at outside of his narrow
field (hydraulics).
> The guy is a zealot whose work is out of
> > his field and he admits his conclusions are based on the prejudice that
> > "all genuine scientific facts support the bible" his words,not mine.
> > Since he begins with prejudice and assumption his conclsions are suspect
> > Just as if someone said all "genuine fact" agrees with the Vedas or any
> > other texts. :)
>
> Whether or not you like his phrase "all genuine scientific facts support
> the bible" does not discredit him. Let's see, argument by ridicule. It's in
> his arguments (which you are evidently ignoring) that establish his
> premise. By effectively ignoring his arguments which you find too
> powerful to deal with, you are attempting an easy way out to refute his
> point of view. In my opinion you should avoid ad hominem and ridicule
> and focus on his arguments.
>
I see it more as a statement of bias. I.E. those scientific facts that
contradictthe literal bible must be wrong (and can be ignored).
> > > > He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
> > > > Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
>
> The institute is accredited.
>
By who?:
>
[Snip]
Furthermore, science HAS become very specialized, and having a degree in
Civil Engineering does not give him expertise in Biology, or most other
fields of science. In fact, there are probably areas IN civil engr. where he
has
little knowledge because of this specialization.
Darwin, IIRC, was a scholar and a naturalist, which made him as qualified
as anyone of his day.
Mike
Ken Cox
Mark Bare wrote:
>
> Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
> was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
> geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
Exactly the same thing. Morris' geological fantasies are
motivated by Biblical literalism, not by any geological
theories (or geological evidence, for that matter).
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Doug Weller
On 14 Jan 1998 12:53:47 -0500, in sci.skeptic, J M wrote:
>
>Your statement:
>
>Someone who believes the Bible cannot be proficient in science.
>
>My statement:
>
>Issac Newton believes the Bible and was considered to be the greatest
>scientist who has ever lived.
>
>Have a good day,
Someone who believes the Bible to be literally true cannot be proficient in
science, that goes without saying unless you redefine the word 'science'.
Who considers Newton the greatest scientist that ever lived? Morris?
Doug
Mark Isaak
In article <34BB7F...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>Adrian Barnett wrote:
>> It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during
>> the Flood. There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not
>> understand?
>>
>> Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why
>> all the geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists
>> etc. have got it all wrong.
>>
>> There is NO EVIDENCE!
>
>Coming from a guy who hasn't read the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.
It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during
the Flood. There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not
understand?
Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why
all the geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists
etc. have got it all wrong.
There is NO EVIDENCE!
(Coming from a guy who HAS read the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.)
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That
which you do not know, you invent." - J. Michael Straczynski
J M
> > fields. Since these people are the pillars of evolution, I guess we should
> > reject their findings. As I recall Darwin himself was not qualified to
> > write his book. (But we'll over look that because he's our hero? Right.)
> > Additionally, if you have the degree and training in science, I don't think
> > you have to get every degree possible just to speak in other areas of
> > science so long as you are able to do the research. Lastly, this debate
> > that we're fighting is called Ad hominem. You're attacking Morris rather
> > than his arguments.
> >
>
> OK. The disproof of evolution based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamicsis completely
> and flatly wrong. He should now better. All the engineers
> I know have had at least 2 semester of undergrad physics, and I know
> Thermo is covered there. His complete misrepresentation of the 2nd
> Law leads me to believe he is incompetent, at outside of his narrow
> field (hydraulics).
He doesn't misrepresent the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This is a
popular phrase among anti-creationist (ie. "Gish and Morris do not
understand thermodynamics") but is a claim that has remained
unsubstantive. It's only a gimmick without bases. It reminds me of
Hitler's big lie theory. Just keep saying it and people will believe it. But
where is the beef?
>
> > The guy is a zealot whose work is out of
> > > his field and he admits his conclusions are based on the prejudice that
> > > "all genuine scientific facts support the bible" his words,not mine.
> > > Since he begins with prejudice and assumption his conclsions are suspect
> > > Just as if someone said all "genuine fact" agrees with the Vedas or any
> > > other texts. :)
> >
> > Whether or not you like his phrase "all genuine scientific facts support
> > the bible" does not discredit him. Let's see, argument by ridicule. It's in
> > his arguments (which you are evidently ignoring) that establish his
> > premise. By effectively ignoring his arguments which you find too
> > powerful to deal with, you are attempting an easy way out to refute his
> > point of view. In my opinion you should avoid ad hominem and ridicule
> > and focus on his arguments.
> >
>
> I see it more as a statement of bias. I.E. those scientific facts that
> contradictthe literal bible must be wrong (and can be ignored).
An evolutionist is strongly biased to seek only solutions that are
evolutionary. Anyone that presents an alternative, in this view, is
strongly biased. Meanwhile we over look the fact that we're the pot
calling the kettle black.
> > > > > He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
> > > > > Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
> >
> > The institute is accredited.
> >
>
> By who?:
>
> >
>
> [Snip]
>
> Furthermore, science HAS become very specialized, and having a degree in
> Civil Engineering does not give him expertise in Biology, or most other
> fields of science. In fact, there are probably areas IN civil engr. where he
> has
> little knowledge because of this specialization.
You do not prove your lack of knowledge in not having a degree. You
prove yourself in your argumentation and your knowledge of the subject.
A person's degree has nothing to do with this subject.
> Darwin, IIRC, was a scholar and a naturalist, which made him as
qualified
> as anyone of his day.
Oh really?
> Mike
Brandon M. Gorte
J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
: > J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
: > : Mark Bare wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
: > : > geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
: > : Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
: > : wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
: > : underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
: > : accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
: > : problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
: > : faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
: > : a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
: > : in the ocean speaks to the same.
: >
: > No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
: > oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
: > oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
:
: Ha,ha, oops. Sorry. Let me get this straight. You said that the
: Continental crust is lighter than oceanic crust and therefore it will float
: on top of any suducting oceanic crust - so therefore there is no
: erosion?? Did you actually say that or am I dreaming? Perhaps the
: continental crust is a large plate full of large caves full of helium. This
: causes the continents to rise and....bosh, what kind of nonsense are we
: getting into? Oh well, you're answer speaks for itself.
As I said, there is no erosion. There is, however, melting. Anyway,
continental crust is made up of rocks like granites, granodiorites, and
diorites. These rocks are less dense than the rocks that make up the
oceanic crust -- gabbro/basalt. As they are less dense, continental crust
will float on top of oceanic crust. J<censored>y, think here, we are not
talking about solid rock at these depths.
Adrian Barnett
> J M spake thusly :-
>>
>> J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
>> : Mark Bare wrote:
>> : >
>> : > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this
>> : > hydrologist was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered
>> : > a lot of geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
>> :
>> : Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
>> : wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
>> : underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
>> : accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
>> : problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
>> : faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
>> : a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated in
>> : the ocean speaks to the same.
>>
>> No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
>> oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
>> oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
>Ha,ha, oops. Sorry. Let me get this straight. You said that the
>Continental crust is lighter than oceanic crust and therefore it will float
>on top of any suducting oceanic crust - so therefore there is no
>erosion?? Did you actually say that or am I dreaming? Perhaps the
>continental crust is a large plate full of large caves full of helium. This
>causes the continents to rise and....bosh, what kind of nonsense are we
>getting into? Oh well, you're answer speaks for itself.
>JM
As usual, the human car alarm demonstrates his ignorance of basic science.
The continents are generally made up of silica-aluminium based rocks (the Sial),
which has a density of 2.7. The crust rocks are silica-magnesium (the Sima), with a
density of 3.0, and the mantle rocks below have a density of 3.3+.
The continental plates are lighter than the oceanic crust and the mantle.
Read a book, nameless. You might get a clue.
--
____________________
| __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
| (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
|____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
"God knew the whole world history back before Genesis was written." - John P. Boatwright, alt.atheism
J M
Ken Cox wrote:
>
> Mark Bare wrote:
> >
> > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
> > was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered a lot of
> > geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
>
> motivated by Biblical literalism, not by any geological
> theories (or geological evidence, for that matter).
>
a geologist is motivated to find oil and he finds it, then who cares if he is
motivated to find oil. His motivation doesn't prove him wrong. In the
same respect if Morris is able to argue his point then the strength of
what he says lies in the arguments themselves. It has nothing to do with
his motivations. So far you haven't been able to successfully argue your
point and you gave into attacking Morris' motivations. Please, try again.
JM
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
J M
Adrian Barnett wrote:
>
> > Kalandros M spake thusly :-
>
> >> Kalandros M wrote:
> >> >
> >> > J M wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > This is John Morris PH.Ds' answer:
> >> > >
> >> > > How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
> >> > > could man have survived in this area for so long? Wouldn't he have been
> >> > > swept away at some time during the deposition of the 8.500 feet of
>
>
> >> > > frantic effor to escape destruction. Only the Upper Cretaceous beds sem
> >> > > to be continuous on both sides of the arch, but these beds were to come
> >> > > later.
> >> > >
> >> > > JM
>
> >> > strata. So
> >> >
> >> > how do you explain the fossils below this strata? In particular,
> >> > according to the above, Pre-Mesozoic fossils are pre-flood remains. So
> >> > where did these fossils come from?
> >> >
> >> > How can this be "one of the last" places covered by the flood when so
> >> > much of the world (Rockies, Himalayas, etc.) are higher than Glen
> >> > Rose Texas?
> >>
> >> After Morris' explanation I can only consider your questions as a minor
> >> mystery.
> >>
> >> > Mike
>
> > Try Morris' speculation w/ no evidence that that's what really happened.
> >More to the point, though, fossils are claimed to be the remains of animals
> >caught in the flood. Morris' claims leave a large amount of fossils in pre-
> >flood strata. So how did those fossils get there if they were pre-flood?
>
> [puts on the patented ICR "Stupometron Helmet"]
>
> <ahem>
> The so-called pre-flood fossils were obviously pounded down into the
> earlier sediments by the force of the downpour of the Deluge. The earlier
> sediments were still soft as the Earth was only a couple of thousand years
> old then.
>
> [removes helmet, feels sense and reason flowing back]
>
> How was that?
Some how I can help but reflect that what I must have read is result of
mental breakdown.
>
> --
> ____________________
> | __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
> | (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
> |____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
> ** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
>
Mark Isaak
In article <34BC37...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
>He [Henry Morris] doesn't misrepresent the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
You are bearing false witness. See Morris, Henry M., 1985, _Scientific
Creationism_, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 38-46. There are lots
of misrepresentations of the second law of thermodynamics there. For
example, equating entropy with disorder, saying the law makes any
long-term increase in order impossible, and claiming that local increases
in order require a program to direct the growth. Obviously, Henry
M. Morris is either utterly clueless on the subject of thermodynamics, or
he his a damned liar, or both.
Thomas Scharle
Kalandros M (kala...@hubble.colorado.edu) wrote:
...
: OK. The disproof of evolution based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamicsis completely
: and flatly wrong. He should now better. All the engineers
: I know have had at least 2 semester of undergrad physics, and I know
: Thermo is covered there. His complete misrepresentation of the 2nd
: Law leads me to believe he is incompetent, at outside of his narrow
: field (hydraulics).
I don't know how many of the elementary physics courses which
cover topics like "light, heat and sound" do much justice to
thermodynamics.
What I don't understand, though, how the 2nd law precludes order
coming from disorder *and* that the order of the fossils comes about
by something like "hydraulic sorting". Does "hydraulic sorting"
bypass the 2nd law of thermo?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
J M
Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
>
> J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
> : Brandon M. Gorte wrote:
> : > J<censored>y (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
> : > : Mark Bare wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this hydrologist
> : > : > geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
> : > : Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
> : > : wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
> : > : underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
> : > : accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
> : > : problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
> : > : faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
> : > : a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated
> : > : in the ocean speaks to the same.
> : >
> : > No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
> : > oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
> : > oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
> :
> : Ha,ha, oops. Sorry. Let me get this straight. You said that the
> : Continental crust is lighter than oceanic crust and therefore it will float
> : on top of any suducting oceanic crust - so therefore there is no
> : erosion?? Did you actually say that or am I dreaming? Perhaps the
> : continental crust is a large plate full of large caves full of helium. This
> : causes the continents to rise and....bosh, what kind of nonsense are we
> : getting into? Oh well, you're answer speaks for itself.
>
> continental crust is made up of rocks like granites, granodiorites, and
> diorites. These rocks are less dense than the rocks that make up the
> oceanic crust -- gabbro/basalt. As they are less dense, continental crust
> will float on top of oceanic crust. J<censored>y, think here, we are not
> talking about solid rock at these depths.
In your mind there is no melting. There is some melting , where the
rocks actually press together, the chipped off portion, upon contact,
melt with the heat, but the stress caused by the horizontal motion puts
stress onto the plate and that cracks and fractures the crust. Plus,
there is no net creation heat, but the loss of it. Indeed, this theory
additionally erodes my belief in a planet that is supposedly billions and
billions of years old. Additionally, like I have said before, at the
subductionpoint there should be a huge collection of sediments.
J M
Mark Isaak wrote:
>
> In article <34BB7F...@dcsi.net>, J M <mc...@dcsi.net> wrote:
> >Adrian Barnett wrote:
> >> It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during
> >> the Flood. There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not
> >> understand?
> >>
> >> Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why
> >> all the geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists
> >> etc. have got it all wrong.
> >>
> >> There is NO EVIDENCE!
And your saying it makes it so? Explain the disappearance of the
dinosaurs then.
JM
David Iain Greig
It's called an accretionary prism. They exist. What's that
got to do with continental crust being lighter than oceanic crust?
It's also a lot thicker than oceanic crust.
--D.
Kalandros M
J M wrote:
"The beef" is in the thread on the 2nd Law. Have you read it? Have you
studied either physics or thermodynamics? I have. Enough to know
Morris is WRONG.
From that thread:
from Fundamentals_of_Physics, Halliday and Resnick, 3rd ed.:
In any thermodynamic process that proceeds from one equilibrium state to
another, the entropy of the SYSTEM+ENVIRONMENT either
remians unchanged or increases.
Now, according to the above text, entropy in a SYSTEM can decrease,
as long as the entropy of the ENVIROMENT increases by a greater
amount. Thus as long as any evolutionary process results in an increase
in entropy for the environment (heat generated and expelled to the
environment, for example) it does not violate the 2nd law.
How do get to Morris's conclusions from that statement?
Can you provide more than a "does not" argument (as you did above)
to refute these accusations?
Maybe Morris believes if he repeats this stupid arguement enough,
people will believe it.
>
>
> >
> > > The guy is a zealot whose work is out of
> > > > his field and he admits his conclusions are based on the prejudice that
> > > > "all genuine scientific facts support the bible" his words,not mine.
> > > > Since he begins with prejudice and assumption his conclsions are suspect
> > > > Just as if someone said all "genuine fact" agrees with the Vedas or any
> > > > other texts. :)
> > >
> > > Whether or not you like his phrase "all genuine scientific facts support
> > > the bible" does not discredit him. Let's see, argument by ridicule. It's in
> > > his arguments (which you are evidently ignoring) that establish his
> > > premise. By effectively ignoring his arguments which you find too
> > > powerful to deal with, you are attempting an easy way out to refute his
> > > point of view. In my opinion you should avoid ad hominem and ridicule
> > > and focus on his arguments.
> > >
> >
> > I see it more as a statement of bias. I.E. those scientific facts that
> > contradictthe literal bible must be wrong (and can be ignored).
>
> An evolutionist is strongly biased to seek only solutions that are
> evolutionary. Anyone that presents an alternative, in this view, is
> strongly biased. Meanwhile we over look the fact that we're the pot
> calling the kettle black.
>
A good scientist will throw out theories that don't fit the evidence, not
the other way around (as I infer from Morris's statement).
> > > > > > He founded and for all intensive purpose is "the Institute for Creation
> > > > > > Research" in El Cajon, California. This "institution" is not acrredited.
> > >
> > > The institute is accredited.
> > >
> >
> > By who?:
> >
> > >
> >
> > [Snip]
> >
> > Furthermore, science HAS become very specialized, and having a degree in
> > Civil Engineering does not give him expertise in Biology, or most other
> > fields of science. In fact, there are probably areas IN civil engr. where he
> > has
> > little knowledge because of this specialization.
>
> You do not prove your lack of knowledge in not having a degree. You
> prove yourself in your argumentation and your knowledge of the subject.
> A person's degree has nothing to do with this subject.
>
You're the one submitting his resume in his defense. I'm merely pointing outhe has no
OFFICIAL standing in these areas. It does mean that someone
with a degree in those areas will LIKELY have a better understanding of them.
Furthermore, b/c of his credentials, I did listen to his arguements, originally. It
was those arguments (2nd Law, Hydrodynamic sorting, etc) that made me
think he's wrong, if not incompetent.
> > Darwin, IIRC, was a scholar and a naturalist, which made him as
> qualified
> > as anyone of his day.
>
> Oh really?
I said IIRC. If you have indications otherwise, I'd like to see them.
J M
> : and flatly wrong. He should now better. All the engineers
> : I know have had at least 2 semester of undergrad physics, and I know
> : Thermo is covered there. His complete misrepresentation of the 2nd
> : Law leads me to believe he is incompetent, at outside of his narrow
> : field (hydraulics).
>
> I don't know how many of the elementary physics courses which
> cover topics like "light, heat and sound" do much justice to
> thermodynamics.
>
> What I don't understand, though, how the 2nd law precludes order
> coming from disorder *and* that the order of the fossils comes about
> by something like "hydraulic sorting". Does "hydraulic sorting"
> bypass the 2nd law of thermo?
Not really. Unless you want to say that passing sand through a sieve
results in greater order because only the finer particles got through.
That's simplistic. The hard problem comes from the fact that this
universe will some day turn dark - that's thermodynamics for you.
J M
Adrian Barnett wrote:
>
> > J M spake thusly :-
> >>
> >> J M (mc...@dcsi.net) wrote:
> >> : Mark Bare wrote:
> >> : >
> >> : > Let's remember that the majority of the academic time of this
> >> : > hydrologist was before plate tectonics were discovered and that altered
> >> : > a lot of geological thinking...I wonder what he would say now????
> >> :
> >> : Plate tectonics have little bearing on this book. But incase you're
> >> : wondering about plate tectonics, If the oceanic plate is being subducted
> >> : underneath the continents, two things we should expect, the
> >> : accumulation of sediments where the plates rub, and second,an additional
> >> : problem for evolutionists. This friction would erode the continents
> >> : faster then current rates. This additionally works toward substantiating
> >> : a young earth view, aside from the fact that the sediments accumulated in
> >> : the ocean speaks to the same.
> >>
> >> No problem there, J<censored>y. Continental crust is lighter than
> >> oceanic crust, and therefore it will float on top of any subducting
> >> oceanic crust. There is no erosion at that point.
>
> >Ha,ha, oops. Sorry. Let me get this straight. You said that the
> >on top of any suducting oceanic crust - so therefore there is no
> >erosion?? Did you actually say that or am I dreaming? Perhaps the
> >continental crust is a large plate full of large caves full of helium. This
> >causes the continents to rise and....bosh, what kind of nonsense are we
> >getting into? Oh well, you're answer speaks for itself.
>
>
> As usual, the human car alarm demonstrates his ignorance of basic science.
> The continents are generally made up of silica-aluminium based rocks (the Sial),
> which has a density of 2.7. The crust rocks are silica-magnesium (the Sima), with a
> density of 3.0, and the mantle rocks below have a density of 3.3+.
>
> The continental plates are lighter than the oceanic crust and the mantle.
>
> Read a book, nameless. You might get a clue.
While you are skirting the issue let me point out something to you. The
fact that the differing density is a question that is not subject to doubt.
The problem which you carefully obfuscated it the fact that the continent
hold a lot of weight. The fact that they are of lesser density is besides
the point. The point is the weight is the friction factor which is why you
admit that there is heat generated and rocks melting.
JM
> ____________________
> | __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
> | (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
> |____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
> ** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
>
J M
Some how this eludes the producers of that famous underwater map of
the entire oceans you see in that issue of National Geographic.
> --D.
Roger Ivie
In article <2258.318T1511T10785035@spam_be_gone.demon.co.uk>, "Adrian Barnett" <adrian@spam_be_gone.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Ooh! Ooh! Let me try!
> [puts on the patented ICR "Stupometron Helmet"]
>
> <ahem>
> The so-called pre-flood fossils were obviously pounded down into the
> earlier sediments by the force of the downpour of the Deluge. The earlier
> sediments were still soft as the Earth was only a couple of thousand years
> old then.
>
> [removes helmet, feels sense and reason flowing back]
>
> How was that?
Sorry, if the Earth was a couple of thousand years old the earlier
sediments would have already turned to rock...
--
-------------------------+------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie | Impeach Bob Palmer!
iv...@cc.usu.edu |
http://cc.usu.edu/~ivie/ |
J M
Regardless. Are you saying that entropy does not exist?
> Now, according to the above text, entropy in a SYSTEM can decrease,
> as long as the entropy of the ENVIROMENT increases by a greater
> amount. Thus as long as any evolutionary process results in an increase
> in entropy for the environment (heat generated and expelled to the
> environment, for example) it does not violate the 2nd law.
>
> How do get to Morris's conclusions from that statement?
> Can you provide more than a "does not" argument (as you did above)
> to refute these accusations?
>
> Maybe Morris believes if he repeats this stupid arguement enough,
> people will believe it.
Evidently you have not read enough of Morris. According to him all
living system temporarily overcome entropy. This is possible through
the biological system. On the early earth this system did not exist. Thus
amino acids are destroyed by entropy even as they are made. Hence, if
you had a hundred monkeys with a keyboard, they would never produce a
work of Shakespeare because the letters would disapere as a result of
entropy. (To make the analogy more perfect)
Are you telling me that bridge builder need not know anything about
rivers? That's why hydrodynamics is crucial to bridge building.
Yada,yada,yada.
JM
Brian R. Speer
Mark Isaak wrote:
> There was *no* flood! Show me some evidence that supports the idea of
> a flood. There is NO EVIDENCE!
J M wrote:
> Explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs then.
I guess they were killed in the same flood that wiped out the dodo,
Carolina passenger pigeon, and the moa. After all, a flood is the only
natural force known that could possibly wipe out whole species.
(Clarifying note to the clueless: look up "sarcasm")
--Brian R. Speer
UC Museum of Paleontology
vesp...@socrates.berkeley.edu
J M
> >>
> >> > J M spake thusly :-
>
> >> Who gives a shit what Morris says? Isn't this the same Morris who thinks
> >> that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
> >
> >
> >LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!! LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!
> >
> >Note the following:
> >
> > If person A says he believes in angels and devils, then if he says he
> >believes 2+2 then don't believe him because he says angels and devils
> >exist.
> >
> >END OF LOGIC FLAW ALERT.
>
> Now, now, J.M, if you can argue from authority - listing all of Morris'
> credintals instead of his arguments - then I think Marksberry is justified
> in pointing out that Morris' track record has some, how shall we put it -
> less than scientific conclusions.
It is less than a scientific conclusion that a hydraulic engineer (one who
builds bridges) should not understand rivers and water action? We were
talking about meanders, remember?
How do you come to your conclusions?
Cheerios,
JM
>
> Michael Lacy
J M
Brian R. Speer wrote:
>
> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > There was *no* flood! Show me some evidence that supports the idea of
> > a flood. There is NO EVIDENCE!
>
> J M wrote:
> > Explain the disappearance of the dinosaurs then.
>
> I guess they were killed in the same flood that wiped out the dodo,
> Carolina passenger pigeon, and the moa. After all, a flood is the only
> natural force known that could possibly wipe out whole species.
>
> (Clarifying note to the clueless: look up "sarcasm")
That would be funny except we have these huge graveyards in which
hundreds of thousands of dinosaurs are found. Sometimes their bones are
found jumbled. The articulated ones were evidently still alive when they
were buried. This seems to elude you super smart evolutionists.
Yada, yada,yada.
JM
J M
Adrian Barnett wrote:
>
> > J M spake thusly :-
> >Adrian Barnett wrote:
> >>
> >> > J M spake thusly :-
> >> >Erik Marksberry wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually this can be easily explained. One possibility is that the
> >> >> > creatures who put the footprint there were running,
> >> >>
> >> >> Running? Creatures in the middle of a flood typically are
> >> >> forced
> >> >> to swim. And if the footprint was made at the outset of the flood, then
> >> >> it would appear at the bottommost strata. What would account for
> >> >> relatively recent footprints in the fossil record? When recent strata
> >> >> were laid down, it would have been towards the end of the flood (almost
> >> >> a year). How did anything survive in the flood for a year and THEN
> >> >> manage to lay down footprints?
> >> >>
> >> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >> >How then, if all these sediments were laid down in one catastrophe,
> >>
> >> that the Earth is surrounded by angels and devils?
>
> >LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!! LOGIC FLAW ALERT!!!!!
>
> >Note the following:
>
> > If person A says he believes in angels and devils, then if he says he
> >believes 2+2 then don't believe him because he says angels and devils
> >exist.
>
> >END OF LOGIC FLAW ALERT.
>
> not mean that he might be wrong about the Flood.
>
> It's just a happy co-incidence.
And its not a coincidence that you are participating in what is called
Ad hominem.
> >> It's no use trying to justify how things *might* have happened during the
> >> Flood. There was *no* flood! Which part of that do you not understand?
> >>
> >> Show me some evidence that supports the idea of a flood. Explain why all
> >> the geologists, biologists, paleontologists, nuclear physicists etc. have
> >> got it all wrong.
> >>
> >> There is NO EVIDENCE!
>
> >Coming from a guy who hasn't read the Genesis Flood by Henry Morris.
>
> What's the point? The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and Noah's Flood
> never happened.
I thought they just revised that number. They do it every 25 years or so
in order incrementally get it to when it should be: perhaps 55 billion. But
they can't reach that goal fast enough.
Noah's Flood did happen. Clue: Huge fossil grave yards.
>
> The Egyptians sincerely believed that the Earth was created by one of their
> Gods masturbating. I guess no-one should dismiss that either, eh?
What relevance does that have to geology? The flood involves a
significant amount of water action and that evidently left a mark on this
planet. What you're talking about is abstract.
> Do you have a single shred of evidence to suggest that the earth is <10000 years
> old and was totally flooded a few thousand years ago?
>
> I say again :
> >> There was no flood. Deal with it.
>
> --
> ____________________
> | __ __/__ o __ __ | Pope Adrian IV of the Church of The Holy Lungfish,
> | (_/(_// / (_// / | Larry the Thrice-blessed. BAAWA (a.a. #0x80); DNRC
> |____________________| http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/
> ** Anti-spam : change "spam_be_gone" to "abarnett" in my address to reply **
>
> Spook Bait V1.2
> clinton canter scientology red mercury sex ira aurora ebe whitehouse
J M
Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> J M wrote:
>
> > I guess
> > they used to say things like that during Galileo's time.
> >
>
> Another typical creationist technique. I see argument from authority did
> not work as you expected, so you are going for the "They laughed at
> Galileo" trick -a.k.a. the "false analogy" trick. Well, they laughed at
> the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at the Marx brothers. Does
> this mean that the Marx brothers scientific view (presuming they had
> one) was correct?
LOGIC ALERT!!!!! LOGIC ALERT!!!!!!
If Galileo was laughed at despite his being right,
Then
Marx brothers were laughed at then they must be right?
Marx brothers were comedians.
Secondly, what we're talking about is the establishment. A majority
does not determine a truth. The truth is the truth even if everyone didn't
believe it. In this case the evolutionists in this ng were arguing that the
evolution establishment is correct virtue of the number of believers, I
pointed out that Galileo had to confront the majority who were, at that
time, laughed at him.
END OF LOGIC ALERT
>
> The fact that people laugh at your theory does not give it any
> credibility, just becasue at some time people laughed at Galileo. People
> would _still_ be laughing at Galileo today, and rightly so, if
> scientific investigation had not shown him to be correct. People laugh
> at theories that have no evidence for them, and stop laughing when there
> is evidence.
>
> You, on the other hand, now want us to just believe what you say
> _because_ people laugh at your theories, _instead_ of showing evidence.
> Sorry, it does not work that way. You want us to stop laughing? Show
> some serious scientific work that supports your view. You have so far
> given no evidence that was not immeidatelly shot to hell.
The laugh is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
> BTW, I told a few people 2+2=5. They laughed. I guess this shows 2+2=5
> - after all, they laughed at Galileo too, didn't they?
>
> > From your appeal to authority - I don't know.