>On Nov 17, 9:42 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 5:32 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 15, 1:37 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 15, 2:37 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:00:06 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> > > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >You welcome, but in place of your Bedrock Bud, why don't you explain
>> > > > >why the GC had to have 8 different floodings to get their marine
>> > > > >fossils in them?
>> > > > I'll be glad to, just as soon as you answer some of the questions I
>> > > > asked you first. Here they are again, in case you forgot:
>> > > > So why are only some rock layers folded and other not? How did the
>> > > > Flood create 14 separate uncomformities? How did the Flood create the
>> > > > Great Uncomformity? How did the Flood tilt all the rock below the
>> > > > Great Uncomformity but none of the layers above it? How did the Flood
>> > > > create over 40 different kinds of rock layers, requiring different
>> > > > conditions, from desert dunes, to shallow ocean mud, gravel, and
>> > > > limestone, to hot lava, in no particular order?
>> > > I would just say over general reading that most of the consensus of
>> > > floodists are that there were lots of conditions within the flood
>> > > itself.
>> > Making up stories is easy. Where is the supporting evidence?
>> > > From the beginning to over a year later, would be water
>> > > slowly rising, seabeds radically changing, seabeds in some places
>> > > having the mantle compromised causing great heat in sections,
>> > > developing currents within the flood, great violence and wind, and
>> > > newer colder weather patterns immediately emerging, to mountains being
>> > > formed to great runoffs,
>> > Rapid runoff creating mountains would not leave mountains as are seen
>> > today.
>> Runoff creating mountains???? Many changes are assumed like the heavy
>> rock of the ocean floors being forced into the hot mantle underneaths
>> causing sediments to compress, deform and fault...which would lower
>> the ocean beds and create mountains at a faster and greater rate. And
>> that would have to take place, in order for the marine fossils to get
>> there, which they are, which prove the flood....and the runoff would
>> be past that time.
>> > > would give a lot of factors of relocating
>> > > lots of earth and it's habitations like nothing ever could,
>> > Like separating large dinosaurs and large mammals? like seaprating
>> > trilobites from lobsters? Why not just call it "magic", and stop
>> > pretending "floodology" is anything close to being science?
>> First you still have what can't be explained by any other means. A
>> force to get a sudden death, with creatures that don't normally
>> habitate, and creatures from the marine as well as the land. If you
>> don't want to deal with that evidence, I don't think it allows you to
>> go to your 'Plan B'.
>> CJ
>> > > but a huge
>> > > flood. And maybe you can give us a play by play on this transgression
>> > > and regression that seems to be a commodity in earth's 'ebb and tide'.
>You keep mentioning "flood runoff". Please explain just where it is
>running off to? Remember the whole world is covered with water, where
>is there anyplace for it to run?
>While you're doing it maybe you can come up with a _believable_ answer
>to the question, where did all that water go?
>Harry K
I have asked that very same question many times, and when I get an
answer, it's always the same: the water goes back to the same place
it came from. Of course, those that answer don't say from whence it
came. Or if they do, they don't say why it changed direction.
> First you still have what can't be explained by any other means. A
> force to get a sudden death, with creatures that don't normally
> habitate, and creatures from the marine as well as the land. If you
> don't want to deal with that evidence, I don't think it allows you to
> go to your 'Plan B'.
Please explain how the flood gathered all the smilodons in California (or from a region comparably large) and stuffed them all into one small hole at La Brea. Or do you not want to deal with the evidence?
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
On Nov 18, 9:47 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/12 9:41 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > First you still have what can't be explained by any other means. A
> > force to get a sudden death, with creatures that don't normally
> > habitate, and creatures from the marine as well as the land. If you
> > don't want to deal with that evidence, I don't think it allows you to
> > go to your 'Plan B'.
> Please explain how the flood gathered all the smilodons in California
> (or from a region comparably large) and stuffed them all into one small
> hole at La Brea.
And managed to filter out velocirapters, other large dinosaurs...
> Or do you not want to deal with the evidence?
"Not wanting to deal with the evidence" seems his only route, since
all he has done so far is repeated the same nonsense.
curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 9:47 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global
> > > flood could easily have created this feature.
> > > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the
> > > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> > > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
> > Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
> > found just above present day sea level.
> > Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile paintings.
> > Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
> > that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
> > since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
> > or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
> > Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
> > Jan
> I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
> the subject in something like this?
Grotte Cosquer has cave art, just above present day sea level,
and is in open connection with the sea.
It's ±20.000 years old by scientific logic.
It's ante-diluvian by creationist logic.
Any (even temporary) rise in sea level
would have destroyed the fragile paintings.
Hence, no global flood, and a forteri,
sea level is now at its highest
for at least the last 20.000 years.
Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 11/17/12 9:41 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > First you still have what can't be explained by any other means. A
> > force to get a sudden death, with creatures that don't normally
> > habitate, and creatures from the marine as well as the land. If you
> > don't want to deal with that evidence, I don't think it allows you to
> > go to your 'Plan B'.
> Please explain how the flood gathered all the smilodons in California
> (or from a region comparably large) and stuffed them all into one small
> hole at La Brea. Or do you not want to deal with the evidence?
Or idem: how did 100.000 cave bears manage
to get their skulls found in the Drachenloch cave?
> > On Sep 16, 9:47 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A > > > > global
> > > > flood could easily have created this feature.
> > > > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when > > > > the
> > > > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> > > > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
> > > Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
> > > found just above present day sea level.
> > > Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile paintings.
> > > Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
> > > that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
> > > since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
> > > or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
> > > Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
> > > Jan
> > I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
> > the subject in something like this?
> Grotte Cosquer has cave art, just above present day sea level,
> and is in open connection with the sea.
> It's ±20.000 years old by scientific logic.
> It's ante-diluvian by creationist logic.
> Any (even temporary) rise in sea level
> would have destroyed the fragile paintings.
You seem to forget that it was a magical Flood. It could force continents to move rapidly over vast distances, yet leave delicate foot prints untouched. It could let silt and clay fall out of suspension while moving giant boulders hundreds of miles. It could erode mountains and form new mountains from those materials. Deposit marine limestone over and under aeolian sands. It could rapidly deposit mile thick layers of sediments and cut deep canyons through those layers (well, at least one canyon) without the saturated layers collapsing.
> Hence, no global flood, and a forteri,
> sea level is now at its highest
> for at least the last 20.000 years.
The fact that the paintings you mention are untouched is proof of the magical properties of the Flood.
> > > On Sep 16, 9:47 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A
> > > > > global
> > > > > flood could easily have created this feature.
> > > > > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when
> > > > > the
> > > > > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this
> > > > > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
> > > > Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
> > > > found just above present day sea level.
> > > > Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile paintings.
> > > > Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
> > > > that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
> > > > since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
> > > > or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
> > > > Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
> > > > Jan
> > > I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
> > > the subject in something like this?
> > Grotte Cosquer has cave art, just above present day sea level,
> > and is in open connection with the sea.
> > It's 20.000 years old by scientific logic.
> > It's ante-diluvian by creationist logic.
> > Any (even temporary) rise in sea level
> > would have destroyed the fragile paintings.
> You seem to forget that it was a magical Flood. It could force continents to
> move rapidly over vast distances, yet leave delicate foot prints untouched.
> It could let silt and clay fall out of suspension while moving giant > boulders hundreds of miles. It could erode mountains and form new mountains
> from those materials. Deposit marine limestone over and under aeolian sands.
> It could rapidly deposit mile thick layers of sediments and cut deep canyons
> through those layers (well, at least one canyon) without the saturated
> layers collapsing.
No matter how magic it was,
it did cover the earth to the highest mountain tops.
> > Hence, no global flood, and a forteri,
> > sea level is now at its highest
> > for at least the last 20.000 years.
> The fact that the paintings you mention are untouched is proof of the
> magical properties of the Flood.
That's against the scriptures,
and not acceptable to literalists,
> > > > On Sep 16, 9:47 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A
> > > > > > global
> > > > > > flood could easily have created this feature.
> > > > > > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time > > > > > > when
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of > > > > > > this
> > > > > > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and > > > > > > seas.
> > > > > Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
> > > > > found just above present day sea level.
> > > > > Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile > > > > > paintings.
> > > > > Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
> > > > > that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
> > > > > since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
> > > > > or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
> > > > > Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
> > > > > Jan
> > > > I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
> > > > the subject in something like this?
> > > Grotte Cosquer has cave art, just above present day sea level,
> > > and is in open connection with the sea.
> > > It's ±20.000 years old by scientific logic.
> > > It's ante-diluvian by creationist logic.
> > > Any (even temporary) rise in sea level
> > > would have destroyed the fragile paintings.
> > You seem to forget that it was a magical Flood. It could force > > continents to
> > move rapidly over vast distances, yet leave delicate foot prints > > untouched.
> > It could let silt and clay fall out of suspension while moving giant
> > boulders hundreds of miles. It could erode mountains and form new > > mountains
> > from those materials. Deposit marine limestone over and under aeolian > > sands.
> > It could rapidly deposit mile thick layers of sediments and cut deep > > canyons
> > through those layers (well, at least one canyon) without the saturated
> > layers collapsing.
> No matter how magic it was,
> it did cover the earth to the highest mountain tops.
But how tall were the mountains? And did the water, after having dumped all the suspended material, squeeze the mountains up to the hights we find today? 'The evidence fits the Flood Theory perfectly!'
> > > Hence, no global flood, and a forteri,
> > > sea level is now at its highest
> > > for at least the last 20.000 years.
> > The fact that the paintings you mention are untouched is proof of the
> > magical properties of the Flood.
> That's against the scriptures,
> and not acceptable to literalists,
What I don't understand is why the floodists try to find a scientific plausible explanation for an event that is supposed to have been, literally, an act of God. Especially when they must know by now that any scientific examination of the 'Flood question' will show that such a flood did not happen.
Why don't they play the magic card? 'We know the Flood happened because it says so in the Bible. Amen. And the fact that the evidence does not support it, is proof that only God could have made it happen. The lack of evidence fits the Biblical Flood scenario perfectly!'
>> > > > On Sep 16, 9:47 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> > > > > curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > (46) There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A
>> > > > > > global
>> > > > > > flood could easily have created this feature.
>> > > > > > (47) Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time >> > > > > > when
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of >> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and >> > > > > > seas.
>> > > > > Here we have pictures of ante-diluvian fauna,
>> > > > > found just above present day sea level.
>> > > > > Any rise in sea level would have destroyed the very fragile >> > > > > paintings.
>> > > > > Here we have direct proof (even by creationist logic)
>> > > > > that the sea level has never been higher than at present,
>> > > > > since ante-diluvian times (by creationist logic)
>> > > > > or since BP 20.000 (scientific version)
>> > > > > Anyway you look at it, it's direct evidence of no flood,
>> > > > > Jan
>> > > > I didn't get a toehold on what you were trying to prove/assume. Is
>> > > > the subject in something like this?
>> > > Grotte Cosquer has cave art, just above present day sea level,
>> > > and is in open connection with the sea.
>> > > It's ±20.000 years old by scientific logic.
>> > > It's ante-diluvian by creationist logic.
>> > > Any (even temporary) rise in sea level
>> > > would have destroyed the fragile paintings.
>> > You seem to forget that it was a magical Flood. It could force >> > continents to
>> > move rapidly over vast distances, yet leave delicate foot prints >> > untouched.
>> > It could let silt and clay fall out of suspension while moving giant
>> > boulders hundreds of miles. It could erode mountains and form new >> > mountains
>> > from those materials. Deposit marine limestone over and under aeolian >> > sands.
>> > It could rapidly deposit mile thick layers of sediments and cut deep >> > canyons
>> > through those layers (well, at least one canyon) without the saturated
>> > layers collapsing.
>> No matter how magic it was,
>> it did cover the earth to the highest mountain tops.
>But how tall were the mountains? And did the water, after having dumped all >the suspended material, squeeze the mountains up to the hights we find >today? 'The evidence fits the Flood Theory perfectly!'
>> > > Hence, no global flood, and a forteri,
>> > > sea level is now at its highest
>> > > for at least the last 20.000 years.
>> > The fact that the paintings you mention are untouched is proof of the
>> > magical properties of the Flood.
>> That's against the scriptures,
>> and not acceptable to literalists,
>What I don't understand is why the floodists try to find a scientific >plausible explanation for an event that is supposed to have been, literally, >an act of God. Especially when they must know by now that any scientific >examination of the 'Flood question' will show that such a flood did not >happen.
>Why don't they play the magic card? 'We know the Flood happened because it >says so in the Bible. Amen. And the fact that the evidence does not support >it, is proof that only God could have made it happen. The lack of evidence >fits the Biblical Flood scenario perfectly!'
Yeppers. My impression is the Biblical Flood is a just-so story that
seemed plausible at the time it was first spoken, but it's main
purpose was to help illustrate a relationship between God and mankind.
With the advent of science, the details of the Flood are no longer
plausible, but the myth as symbolism remains valid to those of faith. It's a minor percentage of religious folk who ignore the symbology and
seek material evidence for an immaterial cause. The Bible doesn't
mention the Grand Canyon and the faithful have no doctrinal reason to
insist it was made by the Flood.
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
> > > > > > > comes onto it.
> > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
> > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> > > > > relatively flat.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > Boikat
> > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
> > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
> > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
> > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
> > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
> > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
> > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> river. But not a world wide flood.
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
And yet your eons of time formation of deposits that don't have a
geographic place to get the materials from nearby are always
conveniently found? At least the people who find the grand flood
feasible find a path of it coming into the U.S., and put deposits
where they came from, and what currents might have been expected. And
what does your Geo idea folk say? Nothing, it just was something that
was typical to come about over time.
> On Nov 14, 1:17 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 5:27 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 8, 1:52 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Right, like the La Brea tarpits, that show the evidence of a flood?
> > > They do not. They show evidence of animals getting trapped is asphalt
> > > seeps. Some even show evidence of scavenger activity. They do not
> > > show evidence of a global flood.
> Besides, where are the La Brea dinosaurs? How come there are no
> dino's in the traps?
> Boikat
Why would there be? You think the flood was just one day, and was
somekind of whirlpool ending up ini the tar pit drain? The fact that
it was a place that could trap animals and marine life should be the
focus. And what does one find? Marine and animal life.
> On Nov 14, 1:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:20:12 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Nov 11, 8:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 11/11/12 10:45 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > >> > On Nov 10, 6:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > >> >> On 11/10/12 11:14 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > >> >>> On Nov 10, 11:17 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > >> >>>> On 11/9/12 1:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > >> >>>>>> [...]
> > > >> >>>>> If you are curious about the earth and some of your inquiries
> > > >> >>>>> you might stay.
> > > >> >>>> That is quite a bizarre thing to say. If someone is curious about the
> > > >> >>>> earth, there are plenty of better places to be. Like outside, looking
> > > >> >>>> at the earth. What astounds me most about you is that you still have
> > > >> >>>> not grasped the simple point that the earth is a great source for
> > > >> >>>> information about the earth.
> > > >> >>> As I stated I can 'see' Noah's Flood on the bus trip as I see a quick
> > > >> >>> layering in the rock formation as we pass.
> > > >> >> If you see layering, you are probably not seeing a flood. Most layering
> > > >> >> takes multiple passes, and if the layers are distinct, they require
> > > >> >> multiple passes with significantly different environmental conditions in
> > > >> >> each pass.
> > > >> > The Noah's Flood flood as they see it in the GC did all sorts of
> > > >> > things with its currents causing erosions, and the quick laying on of
> > > >> > transported material.
> > > >> Yes, I know. I have read the books. The Noah's Flood envisioned by its
> > > >> supporters was a magic beast which could do anything and everything
> > > >> *except* look like a flood. In other words, it is completely useless as
> > > >> an explanation of evidence and tremendously worse than useless in
> > > >> biblical apologetics.
> > > >> The question is, what do you find it useful *for*? Entertainment?
> > > >> --
> > > >> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> > > >> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> > > >> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> > > >> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> > > I agree. That was very entertaining. Thank you.
> > > Will you be citing Youtubes of the Flintstones soon?- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > You welcome, but in place of your Bedrock Bud, why don't you explain
> > why the GC had to have 8 different floodings to get their marine
> > fossils in them?
> It's called "transgression" and "regression", by geologists.
If that were somehow true, why with all the time between those water
events wouldn't there be great displacements in the topography? In
the GC we see soonly layered deposits because there is no erosion thus
allowing for smooth-seamed places between the stratas. You theory
just wouldn't work for that.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> > > > > > relatively flat.
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> > river. But not a world wide flood.
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> > > > > > relatively flat.
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> > river. But not a world wide flood.
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> And yet your eons of time formation of deposits that don't have a
> geographic place to get the materials from nearby are always
> conveniently found?
There was nothing "convenient" about it. Discovering the origin of
the sands was the result of research. Your dismissive attitude
demonstrates that you are not really interested in "creating
interest".
> At least the people who find the grand flood
> feasible find a path of it coming into the U.S., and put deposits
> where they came from, and what currents might have been expected.
Do they now? I don't suppose you be able to post a link to a reliable
citation, that's been scientifically peer reviewed and published in a
credible scientific journal? No. Of course not.
> And
> what does your Geo idea folk say? Nothing,
Another indication that you either did not read the citation, or are
choosing to simply ignore it. That does not make you look very
objective or honest.
> it just was something that
> was typical to come about over time.
And supported by evidence you are choosing to ignore, and dismiss out
of hand, because you are not interested in "generating interest".
> On Nov 14, 5:27 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 1:17 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 5:27 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 8, 1:52 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Right, like the La Brea tarpits, that show the evidence of a flood?
> > > > They do not. They show evidence of animals getting trapped is asphalt
> > > > seeps. Some even show evidence of scavenger activity. They do not
> > > > show evidence of a global flood.
> > Besides, where are the La Brea dinosaurs? How come there are no
> > dino's in the traps?
> > Boikat
> Why would there be?
Why whould there not be, is the question.
> You think the flood was just one day, and was
> somekind of whirlpool ending up ini the tar pit drain?
According to your myth, the flood had plenty of time to mix large
dino's and large mammals, and all of them should have been intermixed
in at least one world wide flood layer, which would also be mixed in
with marine fossils. Where is that layer again? You never seem to be
able to answer that. One is left to wonder why not....
> The fact that
> it was a place that could trap animals and marine life should be the
> focus. And what does one find? Marine and animal life.
Your "focus" ingores the inconsistancy with the tar pits being a
result of a word wide flood (Which some how managed to not mix any
dino's in with the large mammals) vs a simple trap for anything that
happens to wander into them over time, which is still happening today,
and is observed.
> On Nov 14, 5:32 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 1:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:20:12 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> > > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Nov 11, 8:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > > >> On 11/11/12 10:45 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > >> > On Nov 10, 6:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On 11/10/12 11:14 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > >> >>> On Nov 10, 11:17 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>> On 11/9/12 1:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>>> [...]
> > > > >> >>>>> If you are curious about the earth and some of your inquiries
> > > > >> >>>>> you might stay.
> > > > >> >>>> That is quite a bizarre thing to say. If someone is curious about the
> > > > >> >>>> earth, there are plenty of better places to be. Like outside, looking
> > > > >> >>>> at the earth. What astounds me most about you is that you still have
> > > > >> >>>> not grasped the simple point that the earth is a great source for
> > > > >> >>>> information about the earth.
> > > > >> >>> As I stated I can 'see' Noah's Flood on the bus trip as I see a quick
> > > > >> >>> layering in the rock formation as we pass.
> > > > >> >> If you see layering, you are probably not seeing a flood. Most layering
> > > > >> >> takes multiple passes, and if the layers are distinct, they require
> > > > >> >> multiple passes with significantly different environmental conditions in
> > > > >> >> each pass.
> > > > >> > The Noah's Flood flood as they see it in the GC did all sorts of
> > > > >> > things with its currents causing erosions, and the quick laying on of
> > > > >> > transported material.
> > > > >> Yes, I know. I have read the books. The Noah's Flood envisioned by its
> > > > >> supporters was a magic beast which could do anything and everything
> > > > >> *except* look like a flood. In other words, it is completely useless as
> > > > >> an explanation of evidence and tremendously worse than useless in
> > > > >> biblical apologetics.
> > > > >> The question is, what do you find it useful *for*? Entertainment?
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> > > > >> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> > > > >> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> > > > >> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> > > > I agree. That was very entertaining. Thank you.
> > > > Will you be citing Youtubes of the Flintstones soon?- Hide quoted text -
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > You welcome, but in place of your Bedrock Bud, why don't you explain
> > > why the GC had to have 8 different floodings to get their marine
> > > fossils in them?
> > It's called "transgression" and "regression", by geologists.
> If that were somehow true, why with all the time between those water
> events wouldn't there be great displacements in the topography? In
> the GC we see soonly layered deposits because there is no erosion thus
> allowing for smooth-seamed places between the stratas. You theory
> just wouldn't work for that.
"My theory" is the same theory as mainstream geology's theory. *Your*
objection simply demonstrates your ignorance of real world geology.
Sediment deposited over on top of older sediment *will conform to the
older sedimentary surface until enough sediment has been deposited to
cover the older surface.and fill in any hollows, valleys, cracks, and
bury anything that projects above the average level of the older
sedimentary layer.* The fact you do not know this, again demonstrates
your ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
> > > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> > > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
> > > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> > > > > > > relatively flat.
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Boikat
> > > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
> > > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
> > > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> > > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> > > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
> > > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
> > > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
> > > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
> > > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> > > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> > > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> > > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> > > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> > > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> > > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> > > river. But not a world wide flood.
Bull crap site. They say river systems cannot exist for millions of
years. What utter crap.
BTW, you do know that AIG requires their "researchers" to sign an oath
that pecifically states that all of their findings will conform to a
literal interpretation of Genesis, and if it doesn't, it is ignored.
Does that sound like *anything* they write is objective or scientific
in nature?
<curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 5:32 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 1:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 13, 4:17 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:20:12 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Nov 11, 8:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> > > >> On 11/11/12 10:45 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> > > >> > On Nov 10, 6:22 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >> On 11/10/12 11:14 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> > > >> >>> On Nov 10, 11:17 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>> On 11/9/12 1:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> > > >> >>>>>> [...]
>> > > >> >>>>> If you are curious about the earth and some of your inquiries
>> > > >> >>>>> you might stay.
>> > > >> >>>> That is quite a bizarre thing to say. If someone is curious about the
>> > > >> >>>> earth, there are plenty of better places to be. Like outside, looking
>> > > >> >>>> at the earth. What astounds me most about you is that you still have
>> > > >> >>>> not grasped the simple point that the earth is a great source for
>> > > >> >>>> information about the earth.
>> > > >> >>> As I stated I can 'see' Noah's Flood on the bus trip as I see a quick
>> > > >> >>> layering in the rock formation as we pass.
>> > > >> >> If you see layering, you are probably not seeing a flood. Most layering
>> > > >> >> takes multiple passes, and if the layers are distinct, they require
>> > > >> >> multiple passes with significantly different environmental conditions in
>> > > >> >> each pass.
>> > > >> > The Noah's Flood flood as they see it in the GC did all sorts of
>> > > >> > things with its currents causing erosions, and the quick laying on of
>> > > >> > transported material.
>> > > >> Yes, I know. I have read the books. The Noah's Flood envisioned by its
>> > > >> supporters was a magic beast which could do anything and everything
>> > > >> *except* look like a flood. In other words, it is completely useless as
>> > > >> an explanation of evidence and tremendously worse than useless in
>> > > >> biblical apologetics.
>> > > >> The question is, what do you find it useful *for*? Entertainment?
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>> > > >> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
>> > > >> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
>> > > >> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>> > > I agree. That was very entertaining. Thank you.
>> > > Will you be citing Youtubes of the Flintstones soon?- Hide quoted text -
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>> > You welcome, but in place of your Bedrock Bud, why don't you explain
>> > why the GC had to have 8 different floodings to get their marine
>> > fossils in them?
>> It's called "transgression" and "regression", by geologists.
>If that were somehow true, why with all the time between those water
>events wouldn't there be great displacements in the topography? In
>the GC we see soonly layered deposits because there is no erosion thus
>allowing for smooth-seamed places between the stratas. You theory
>just wouldn't work for that.
Displacements in the topography? What kind of meaningless question is
that?
>> > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
>> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
>> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
>> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
>> > > > > > relatively flat.
>> > > > > > <snip>
>> > > > > > Boikat
>> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
>> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
>> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
>> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
>> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
>> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
>> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
>> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
>> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
>> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
>> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
>> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
>> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
>> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
>> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
>> > river. But not a world wide flood.
The AIG claim here is that the Flood deposited Coconino Formation sand
from the north, while it deposited Navajo Formation sand from the
Appalachians in the east. There's no way a single flood event would
deposit so much sand from one direction and then deposit so much sand
from a different direction. Also the Navajo Formation disappears long
before the Appalachians. There is no way the Flood could carry so
much sand to the Colorado Basin without leaving some between there and
the Appalachians. Also both formations are known fossilized
wind-blown sand dunes, as evidenced by the steep cross-bedding, and
the numerous trace fossils of land animals and plants. The AIG claims
are entirely nonsensical to anyone who actually thought about it with
more that one brain cell.
> >> > > > > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when > >> > > > > > > > the new layer
> >> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> >> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more > >> > > > > > sedements
> >> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> >> > > > > > relatively flat.
> >> > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > Boikat
> >> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists > >> > > > > like to
> >> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it > >> > > > > would be
> >> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> >> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> >> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in > >> > > > the
> >> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening > >> > > > of
> >> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the > >> > > > peaks
> >> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains > >> > > > to
> >> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> >> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> >> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> >> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> >> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> >> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> >> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> >> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> >> > river. But not a world wide flood.
> The AIG claim here is that the Flood deposited Coconino Formation sand
> from the north, while it deposited Navajo Formation sand from the
> Appalachians in the east. There's no way a single flood event would
> deposit so much sand from one direction and then deposit so much sand
> from a different direction. Also the Navajo Formation disappears long
> before the Appalachians. There is no way the Flood could carry so
> much sand to the Colorado Basin without leaving some between there and
> the Appalachians. Also both formations are known fossilized
> wind-blown sand dunes, as evidenced by the steep cross-bedding, and
> the numerous trace fossils of land animals and plants. The AIG claims
> are entirely nonsensical to anyone who actually thought about it with
> more that one brain cell.
Floodists simply ignore the fact that the Coconino formation is petrified sand dunes. The sand was transported by the wind. Not by water. I have asked Jester several times to comment, but he keeps talking about pancakes for some strange reason.
> If that were somehow true, why with all the time between those water
> events wouldn't there be great displacements in the topography?
Displaced to where? By what? Catastrophic upheavals are your stock in trade. Normal erosion will turn a low, flat plain into a low, flat plain. If you expect otherwise, you have abandoned thinking.
> In
> the GC we see soonly layered deposits because there is no erosion thus
> allowing for smooth-seamed places between the stratas. You theory
> just wouldn't work for that.
We *do* see erosion features between and among strata: stream channels, mud cracks, sand dunes. Our theory works for everything there. Your theory cannot begin to explain any of it.
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> On Nov 14, 7:02 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 14, 4:22 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 14, 1:17 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 13, 5:12 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 13, 1:22 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 11, 7:57 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/11/12 11:53 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
>>>>>>>>> comes onto it.
>>>>>>> Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
>>>>>>> than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
>>>>>>> relatively flat.
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Boikat
>>>>>> Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
>>>>>> claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
>>>>>> much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
>>>>> You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
>>>>> errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
>>>>> case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
>>>>> the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
>>>>> are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
>>>>> the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
>>>>> fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
>>>>> You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
>>>>> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
>>> My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
>>> analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
>>> granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
>>> river. But not a world wide flood.
Not a word about how the sand formed in the first place, or how it was sorted and cleaned. What losers!
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> >> > > > > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when the new layer
> >> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> >> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more sedements
> >> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> >> > > > > > relatively flat.
> >> > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > Boikat
> >> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists like to
> >> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it would be
> >> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> >> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> >> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in the
> >> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening of
> >> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the peaks
> >> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains to
> >> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> >> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> >> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> >> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> >> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> >> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> >> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> >> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> >> > river. But not a world wide flood.
> The AIG claim here is that the Flood deposited Coconino Formation sand
> from the north, while it deposited Navajo Formation sand from the
> Appalachians in the east. There's no way a single flood event would
> deposit so much sand from one direction and then deposit so much sand
> from a different direction. Also the Navajo Formation disappears long
> before the Appalachians. There is no way the Flood could carry so
> much sand to the Colorado Basin without leaving some between there and
> the Appalachians. Also both formations are known fossilized
> wind-blown sand dunes, as evidenced by the steep cross-bedding, and
> the numerous trace fossils of land animals and plants. The AIG claims
> are entirely nonsensical to anyone who actually thought about it with
> more that one brain cell.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text
I think most of their tracings are from the general north and ends up
in the south. I would think there would be different time elements
with different materials during such a lengthy flood. I think there
are chalk beds with fossils in the midwest as they allude to, and most
of those probably were made by big water sources...So.....
> > >> > > > > > > > If
> > >> > > > > > > > something is VVVVV, it's going to look like VVVVV when
> > >> > > > > > > > the new layer
> > >> > > > > > > > comes onto it.
> > >> > > > > > Actually, no. The bottoms of the "V" would accumilate more
> > >> > > > > > sedements
> > >> > > > > > than the peaks or sides, and eventually, the strata would be
> > >> > > > > > relatively flat.
> > >> > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > > > > > Boikat
> > >> > > > > Well obviously with any long time element, which geologists
> > >> > > > > like to
> > >> > > > > claim is why there are terrains, valleys, and peaks.....it
> > >> > > > > would be
> > >> > > > > much more dramatic in etchings and configurations, wouldn't it?
> > >> > > > You said "when the new layer comes onto it", now you are implying
> > >> > > > errosion. That would be removing the surface, and generally, in
> > >> > > > the
> > >> > > > case of errosion of mountains and valleys, that means a lessening
> > >> > > > of
> > >> > > > the "dramatic etchings and configurations" as materails from the
> > >> > > > peaks
> > >> > > > are deposited in the valleys. Compare the Appalachian Mountains
> > >> > > > to
> > >> > > > the Rocky Mountains. The reason they look different is due to the
> > >> > > > fact that the Appalachians are much older than the Rockies.
> > >> > > > You really don't know squat about geology, do you?
> > >> > > > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> > >> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > >> > > Appalachian Mts. to the Navajo Sandstone during Noah's Flood?
> > >> > My. That was deeply meaningless. However, chemical and isotope
> > >> > analysis of sediment from the west does show that minerals from the
> > >> > granites of the appalachians were deposited in the west vai wind and
> > >> > river. But not a world wide flood.
> > The AIG claim here is that the Flood deposited Coconino Formation sand
> > from the north, while it deposited Navajo Formation sand from the
> > Appalachians in the east. There's no way a single flood event would
> > deposit so much sand from one direction and then deposit so much sand
> > from a different direction. Also the Navajo Formation disappears long
> > before the Appalachians. There is no way the Flood could carry so
> > much sand to the Colorado Basin without leaving some between there and
> > the Appalachians. Also both formations are known fossilized
> > wind-blown sand dunes, as evidenced by the steep cross-bedding, and
> > the numerous trace fossils of land animals and plants. The AIG claims
> > are entirely nonsensical to anyone who actually thought about it with
> > more that one brain cell.
> Floodists simply ignore the fact that the Coconino formation is petrified
> sand dunes. The sand was transported by the wind. Not by water. I have asked
> Jester several times to comment, but he keeps talking about pancakes for
> some strange reason.
> --
> Malte Runz- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Why in the world wouldn't water carry sand in a flood??? Some of the
biggest sand collections are not near water. Why? The wind just
conveniently blew it in, and nothing else?
> And yet your eons of time formation of deposits that don't have a
> geographic place to get the materials from nearby are always
> conveniently found? At least the people who find the grand flood
> feasible find a path of it coming into the U.S., and put deposits
> where they came from, and what currents might have been expected. ...
Talking about deposits and transportation... The sands that forms the Coconino sandstone are aeolian deposits. No water, just wind. I know that you know that the existence of such a layer is devastating evidence against the Biblical flood, and that's why you refuse to comment on it. Any attempt to show that the sand might be marine or alluvial desposits will be buried, rapidly, under tons of evidence against it.
> ... And
> what does your Geo idea folk say? ...
Your people, like Snelling, simply ignore facts that prove you wrong. And invent other 'facts' when you need them.
My new favorite from Andy A. Snelling:
He knows that what he is saying is not true. And he knows that educated people know that he is lying. But he doesn't care as long as people like you want to be lied to. Actually, you need to be lied to.
> ... Nothing, it just was something that
> was typical to come about over time.
Where did all the sediment you claim was distributed by the Flood originally come from? What type of rock was the parent rock? How did it erode? Are you even able to answer questions like that?
