Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Evidence Of A Global Flood
264 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Isaak
Dec 19, 2012, 8:55:01 PM12/19/12
to
On 12/19/12 11:40 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> It's a huge question. One should be able to geologically answer that
> if they think there are lots of fossils that don't come that way.
> Probably a reason too you don't understand that good fossils aren't
> that plentiful.
"They" and "that way" don't refer to anything, so your sentence is
meaningless.
Good fossils are abundant. Creationists 150 years ago looked at them
and concluded there was no global flood. Many, many, many, many, many,
many more good fossils have been found since then, supporting their
conclusion.
--
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
> It's a huge question. One should be able to geologically answer that
> if they think there are lots of fossils that don't come that way.
> Probably a reason too you don't understand that good fossils aren't
> that plentiful.
"They" and "that way" don't refer to anything, so your sentence is
meaningless.
Good fossils are abundant. Creationists 150 years ago looked at them
and concluded there was no global flood. Many, many, many, many, many,
many more good fossils have been found since then, supporting their
conclusion.
--
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
Boikat
Dec 19, 2012, 9:02:29 PM12/19/12
to
On Dec 19, 1:39 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 10:23 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/17/12 1:19 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
<snip>
> > >> I am assuming only that no erosion occurred to things that did not yet
> > >> exist. You have a problem with that? Seriously?
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > Yeah. That's my reaction to much of what you write.
>
> I see you couldn't answer or reconstuct it in some sort of
> identifiable logic pattern.
You, like most creationists, seem incapable of grsping the concept of
"logic", since you do not display anything close to a logical train of
thought.
>
> > >> The Grand Canyon records multiple sedimentation events in different
> > >> environments interspersed with multiple erosion events, plus
> > >> miscellaneous other features, such as footprints, mud cracks, a lava
> > >> flow, and karst formation. If you don't see a long history there, it
> > >> can only be because your eyes are closed.
>
> > > Nothing would be remotely compelling, except footprints.
>
> > Then consider yourself compelled, because there are footprints.
>
> Have you looked at footprints proving the global flood pics?
How in the world do fossil footprints prove a global flood? If I walk
along stream and river banks with little or no grass or vegitation, I
can find all sorts of footprints. If the ground gets covered by a
layer of sediment and remains undisturbed, and becomes lithified over
time, all that shows is that something left foot prints beside a
stream. No global flood needed. Do you take pride in your stupidity?
>
> > The other features (and many more besides) are also compelling to anyone
> > who knows anything about geology. If you are only out to convince
> > people less educated than you, you have a mighty small audience.
>
> I have a big audience.
So did Bozo the Clown.
> I can only amuse myself when I see all these
> ad hominems and them so disgusted, that they just have to keep reading
> and answering one more time.
>
I'm sure you imagine that you are racking up "persecution points",
too.
Boikat
> On Dec 17, 10:23 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/17/12 1:19 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
<snip>
> > >> I am assuming only that no erosion occurred to things that did not yet
> > >> exist. You have a problem with that? Seriously?
>
> > > Huh?
>
> > Yeah. That's my reaction to much of what you write.
>
> I see you couldn't answer or reconstuct it in some sort of
> identifiable logic pattern.
You, like most creationists, seem incapable of grsping the concept of
"logic", since you do not display anything close to a logical train of
thought.
>
> > >> The Grand Canyon records multiple sedimentation events in different
> > >> environments interspersed with multiple erosion events, plus
> > >> miscellaneous other features, such as footprints, mud cracks, a lava
> > >> flow, and karst formation. If you don't see a long history there, it
> > >> can only be because your eyes are closed.
>
> > > Nothing would be remotely compelling, except footprints.
>
> > Then consider yourself compelled, because there are footprints.
>
> Have you looked at footprints proving the global flood pics?
How in the world do fossil footprints prove a global flood? If I walk
along stream and river banks with little or no grass or vegitation, I
can find all sorts of footprints. If the ground gets covered by a
layer of sediment and remains undisturbed, and becomes lithified over
time, all that shows is that something left foot prints beside a
stream. No global flood needed. Do you take pride in your stupidity?
>
> > The other features (and many more besides) are also compelling to anyone
> > who knows anything about geology. If you are only out to convince
> > people less educated than you, you have a mighty small audience.
>
> I have a big audience.
So did Bozo the Clown.
> I can only amuse myself when I see all these
> ad hominems and them so disgusted, that they just have to keep reading
> and answering one more time.
>
I'm sure you imagine that you are racking up "persecution points",
too.
Boikat
Mark Isaak
Dec 20, 2012, 12:59:24 AM12/20/12
to
On 12/19/12 11:24 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
> I would say, go read the Genesis Flood by Whitcome and Morris.
I thought you would like it. It is, after all, the book which your
whole religion is based upon.
> They
> discuss where geology is weak and goes off on little evidence or just
> handed down presumed evidence.
No they don't. They *claim* to do that, but mostly they lie. In some
places they discuss where geology *was* weak in the 1960s, but the book
has been blown out of the water by advances in plate tectonics.
> They are quire articulate and they go
> into all the Geo-Sciences that are spot-on, quite a list.
You of all people should know that you are not remotely qualified to
tell if they are "spot-on" on anything. I challenge you to find any
spot in that book which is both accurate and pro-flood.
>> IMHO, the only way anyone could be as obtuse as you is if they are a
>> LOKI trying their best to act as dumb as the average creationist.
>>
> I would have liked to see in The Mask, Jim Carrey get his Loki mask
> and torture your classroom.
I knew you rejected Christianity; it's good to see you admit it.
>>
> I would say, go read the Genesis Flood by Whitcome and Morris.
I thought you would like it. It is, after all, the book which your
whole religion is based upon.
> They
> discuss where geology is weak and goes off on little evidence or just
> handed down presumed evidence.
No they don't. They *claim* to do that, but mostly they lie. In some
places they discuss where geology *was* weak in the 1960s, but the book
has been blown out of the water by advances in plate tectonics.
> They are quire articulate and they go
> into all the Geo-Sciences that are spot-on, quite a list.
You of all people should know that you are not remotely qualified to
tell if they are "spot-on" on anything. I challenge you to find any
spot in that book which is both accurate and pro-flood.
>> IMHO, the only way anyone could be as obtuse as you is if they are a
>> LOKI trying their best to act as dumb as the average creationist.
>>
> I would have liked to see in The Mask, Jim Carrey get his Loki mask
> and torture your classroom.
I knew you rejected Christianity; it's good to see you admit it.
Malte Runz
Dec 20, 2012, 6:26:15 AM12/20/12
to
"John Harshman" skrev i meddelelsen
news:GdmdnVKpooA...@giganews.com...
>
> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
(snip)
> >> Are you or are you not claiming that the Coconino sandstone is marine?
> >> Are you or are you not claiming that crossbedding is evidence of marine
> >> deposition?
> >
> > http://www.icr.org/article/coconino-sandstone-flood-or-desert/
"The Coconino covers much of northern Arizona, and along with correlating
beds extends into other states, in all totaling at least 520,000 square
kilometers.1 It is dated by evolutionists ..."
Them evolutionists on the rampage again! I knew it. They always poke their
nose into stuff they don't know nothin' about.
>
> Since that article says nothing about crossbedding being evidence for
> marine deposition, I assume you have retracted that claim. If Whitmore has
> evidence for marine deposition, why hasn't he published it?
From the link:
"Please pray for the success of the study and the safety of the researchers
as they attempt this sometimes hazardous work."
Yet another proof that prayers don't work.
--
Malte Runz
news:GdmdnVKpooA...@giganews.com...
>
> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
(snip)
> >> Are you or are you not claiming that the Coconino sandstone is marine?
> >> Are you or are you not claiming that crossbedding is evidence of marine
> >> deposition?
> >
> > http://www.icr.org/article/coconino-sandstone-flood-or-desert/
"The Coconino covers much of northern Arizona, and along with correlating
beds extends into other states, in all totaling at least 520,000 square
kilometers.1 It is dated by evolutionists ..."
Them evolutionists on the rampage again! I knew it. They always poke their
nose into stuff they don't know nothin' about.
>
> Since that article says nothing about crossbedding being evidence for
> marine deposition, I assume you have retracted that claim. If Whitmore has
> evidence for marine deposition, why hasn't he published it?
From the link:
"Please pray for the success of the study and the safety of the researchers
as they attempt this sometimes hazardous work."
Yet another proof that prayers don't work.
--
Malte Runz
Ron O
Dec 20, 2012, 7:46:27 AM12/20/12
to
someone demonstrate that the Genesis Flood by Witcomb and Morris is
still viable creation science let alone science.
Berlinski still goes on about not enough transitional fossils, but who
even claims that the book is worth reading? The AIG is currently
claiming that the continents moved to their current positions during
the year of the flood. How do they explain that in the Genesis Flood?
Ron Okimoto
curtjester1
Dec 20, 2012, 12:18:47 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 19, 2:30 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 12/15/12 12:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 13, 4:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 12, 7:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 3:55 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I can
> >>>>>>>>> think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood. Anyone
> >>>>>>>>> looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>>>> Hey, it's a testable theory. Try digging a trench in a terrestrial sand
> >>>>>>>> dune and see if you can find any crossbedding. Or you could be lazy and
> >>>>>>>> just google it:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v33-37/data/034/0340...
>
> >>>>>>>> Apparently crossbedding isn't a sign of marine deposition after all. So
> >>>>>>>> goeth the flood.
>
> >>>>>>> Coconino, crossbedding by sand waves due to the flood currents to get
> >>>>>>> its sloped layers.
>
> >>>>>> You haven't addressed the problem. You claimed that crossbedding is
> >>>>>> proof of marine deposition. I showed you a case in which crossbedding
> >>>>>> arises in terrestrial dunes. Shouldn't you retract your claim?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> No, as I didn't use marine life in the crossbedding snippet.
> > blown sand only is the top layer (Kaibab).
>
> Since the Kaibab is Permian, does that mean that the flood ended during
> the Permian?
>
Geological groups are just designations, and to floodists, are just
parts of the flood. So, yes. And many floodists have differing
opinions on the shaping of the GC, on when and how.
> > From a pamplet I dug up it
> > gives a source for the Coconino and that subject is taken up in 2010
> > under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," which
> > words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
> > current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
> > Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." Nov. 2010
> > Geological Society of America
>
> > I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>
> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
> defend past claims.- Hide quoted text -
>
Huh? I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood. I
am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -
> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 15, 4:31 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>> On 12/15/12 12:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 13, 4:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 12, 7:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 3:55 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I can
> >>>>>>>>> think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood. Anyone
> >>>>>>>>> looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>>>> Hey, it's a testable theory. Try digging a trench in a terrestrial sand
> >>>>>>>> dune and see if you can find any crossbedding. Or you could be lazy and
> >>>>>>>> just google it:
>
> >>>>>>>>http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v33-37/data/034/0340...
>
> >>>>>>>> Apparently crossbedding isn't a sign of marine deposition after all. So
> >>>>>>>> goeth the flood.
>
> >>>>>>> Coconino, crossbedding by sand waves due to the flood currents to get
> >>>>>>> its sloped layers.
>
> >>>>>> You haven't addressed the problem. You claimed that crossbedding is
> >>>>>> proof of marine deposition. I showed you a case in which crossbedding
> >>>>>> arises in terrestrial dunes. Shouldn't you retract your claim?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>>> No, as I didn't use marine life in the crossbedding snippet.
>
> >>>> Are you or are you not claiming that the Coconino sandstone is marine?
> >>>> Are you or are you not claiming that crossbedding is evidence of marine
> >>>> deposition?
>
> >>>http://www.icr.org/article/coconino-sandstone-flood-or-desert/
>
> >>>> Are you or are you not claiming that the Coconino sandstone is marine?
> >>>> Are you or are you not claiming that crossbedding is evidence of marine
> >>>> deposition?
>
> >>>http://www.icr.org/article/coconino-sandstone-flood-or-desert/
>
> >> Since that article says nothing about crossbedding being evidence for
> >> marine deposition, I assume you have retracted that claim. If Whitmore
> >> has evidence for marine deposition, why hasn't he published it?
>
> > What I read, is that the only GC strata that has any proof of wind-
> >> marine deposition, I assume you have retracted that claim. If Whitmore
> >> has evidence for marine deposition, why hasn't he published it?
>
> > blown sand only is the top layer (Kaibab).
>
> Since the Kaibab is Permian, does that mean that the flood ended during
> the Permian?
>
Geological groups are just designations, and to floodists, are just
parts of the flood. So, yes. And many floodists have differing
opinions on the shaping of the GC, on when and how.
> > From a pamplet I dug up it
> > gives a source for the Coconino and that subject is taken up in 2010
> > under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," which
> > words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
> > current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
> > Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." Nov. 2010
> > Geological Society of America
>
> > I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>
> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
> defend past claims.- Hide quoted text -
>
Huh? I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood. I
am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
Dec 20, 2012, 12:20:24 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 19, 2:31�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 4:47 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> On 12/17/12 1:17 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 15, 4:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � �wrote:
> >>>> On 12/15/12 12:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 13, 4:35 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> � � �wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 12, 6:55 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> � � � �wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>> � � � You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. �I
> >>>>>>>> can think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood.
> >>>>>>>> Anyone looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
> >>>>>>> Can we say "Post-Flood"????
>
> >>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>> � � � You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. �I
> >>>>>>>> can think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood.
> >>>>>>>> Anyone looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>> So you're saying that the Permian is post-flood?
>
> >>>>> Permian has been opined on. �I wouldn't be qualified to even hazard a
> >>>>> guess at what depositions and topography changes would happen with the
> >>>>> waters going up and then receding.
>
> >>>> You didn't answer the question. And if you aren't qualified, why are you
> >>>> stating your opinions?
>
> >>>>> I think this site has the
> >>>>> arguments taken up by your group, and answered back.
>
> >>>>>http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsark.html
>
> >>> Yes it does. �In the link go to the bottom where it says 'Next', then
> >>> go about 5 in where it speaks of 'Dating', and then go to the bottom
> >>> and see the menu.
>
> >> Would you care to save me the time of searching an entire web site and
> >> just tell me the answer to the question? It would be the polite thing to do.
> > No. �I am not your librarian, and just gave you the site so it would
> > potentially answer your's or anyone's question.
>
> But it's just full of the usual creationist nonsense. Unless you're
> willing to defend the claims made there you shouldn't cite it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why, are you 'the subject' moderator? Why don't you just let it out,
> - Show quoted text -
and say why you don't think something is worthy of a Flood scenario?
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 20, 2012, 12:25:25 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 19, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 12/19/12 11:36 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 9:57 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/17/12 6:53 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:23:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> >>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/15/12 11:51 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Dec 13, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> of the upper layers of the rocks it was dig in -- was formed *after*
> >>>>>>> your supposed Flood?
>
> >>>>>> I am just saying by what has been theorized that winds were greater
> >>>>>> during and right after the Flood, than before, and could have left
> >>>>>> tracks in both.
>
> >>>>> In other words, you *are* saying that the upper layers of the Colorado
> >>>>> Plateau, plus the Grand Canyon itself, are post-flood. Either that, or
> >>>>> you do not know what the heck you are saying, and probably never did.
> >>>>> The latter option seems more likely, and it seems unlikely to change.
> >>>>> Don't you agree?
> >>>> sure take into account what could be in both. If you read the
> >>>> Snelling one, you would have come accross the exact attempted speed of
> >>>> the water flow and other variables construed with it.
>
> >>> If that were true, then you would look at the published works of other
> >>> scientists, and not rely solely on ICR and other Creationist
> >>> organizations. There are few people in those groups interested in
> >>> following where the evidence leads. Their stated goal is to
> >>> rationalize their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible.
>
> >> And trying to get creationists to agree on what's flood, preflood, and
> >> postflood is about as hard as getting them to agree on which fossils are
> >> humans and which are apes.
> > Oh there is a plethora of geology 'ahem's' too. I looked under making
> > of the GC, and found about 10 theories. I don't see the Floodists as
> > having to have such a need to go by one explanation, and often they
> > cheerfully just agree to disagree on some items, but it has nothing to
> > do with finding problems with their overall theory of the global
> > flood.
>
> I would be interested in seeing your 10 theories of the making of the
> Grand Canyon. I find it hard to believe that you actually did find them.
>
Why? It's just going to Geo sites and looking under one googled
question. Anyone can look for themselves.
> As I've said, creationists can't agree even about the most basic facts,
Wrong.
> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
> from other sediments?
First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
geology and have opinions, not.
CJ
> On 12/19/12 11:36 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 9:57 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/17/12 6:53 PM, jillery wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:23:00 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> >>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 15, 8:44 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/15/12 11:51 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Dec 13, 7:54 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:04 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 6:55 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I
> >>>>>>>>> can think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood.
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>>>> Can we say "Post-Flood"????
>
> >>>>>>> Are you saying now that the Grand Canyon -- the ditch itself, plus a few
>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 6:55 pm, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I
> >>>>>>>>> can think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood.
> >>>>>>>>> Anyone looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>>>> Can we say "Post-Flood"????
>
> >>>>>>> of the upper layers of the rocks it was dig in -- was formed *after*
> >>>>>>> your supposed Flood?
>
> >>>>>> I am just saying by what has been theorized that winds were greater
> >>>>>> during and right after the Flood, than before, and could have left
> >>>>>> tracks in both.
>
> >>>>> In other words, you *are* saying that the upper layers of the Colorado
> >>>>> Plateau, plus the Grand Canyon itself, are post-flood. Either that, or
> >>>>> you do not know what the heck you are saying, and probably never did.
> >>>>> The latter option seems more likely, and it seems unlikely to change.
> >>>>> Don't you agree?
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 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
>
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> I leave that to the scientists who when dealing with flood waters, I'm
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>>> sure take into account what could be in both. If you read the
> >>>> Snelling one, you would have come accross the exact attempted speed of
> >>>> the water flow and other variables construed with it.
>
> >>> If that were true, then you would look at the published works of other
> >>> scientists, and not rely solely on ICR and other Creationist
> >>> organizations. There are few people in those groups interested in
> >>> following where the evidence leads. Their stated goal is to
> >>> rationalize their own idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible.
>
> >> And trying to get creationists to agree on what's flood, preflood, and
> >> postflood is about as hard as getting them to agree on which fossils are
> >> humans and which are apes.
> > Oh there is a plethora of geology 'ahem's' too. I looked under making
> > of the GC, and found about 10 theories. I don't see the Floodists as
> > having to have such a need to go by one explanation, and often they
> > cheerfully just agree to disagree on some items, but it has nothing to
> > do with finding problems with their overall theory of the global
> > flood.
>
> I would be interested in seeing your 10 theories of the making of the
> Grand Canyon. I find it hard to believe that you actually did find them.
>
Why? It's just going to Geo sites and looking under one googled
question. Anyone can look for themselves.
> As I've said, creationists can't agree even about the most basic facts,
Wrong.
> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
> from other sediments?
First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
geology and have opinions, not.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 20, 2012, 12:28:47 PM12/20/12
to
On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:00:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
> >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
> know that deposition has been slower.- Hide quoted text -
potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
CJ
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:00:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Here's one from CRC, then. The polystrate fossil lycopod (giant reed
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
> know that deposition has been slower.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure that would satsify many, as even floodists opine on many
> - Show quoted text -
potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
CJ
Boikat
Dec 20, 2012, 12:44:39 PM12/20/12
to
> I'm not sure that would satsify many, as even floodists opine on many
> potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
They "opine" without doing any actual research.
> potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
Boikat
Mark Isaak
Dec 20, 2012, 1:04:52 PM12/20/12
to
On 12/20/12 4:46 AM, Ron O wrote:
> [...]
promote its contents, though. I think they just want the money
generated by the sales.
> Berlinski still goes on about not enough transitional fossils, but who
> even claims that the book is worth reading? The AIG is currently
> claiming that the continents moved to their current positions during
> the year of the flood. How do they explain that in the Genesis Flood?
They don't. They knew that if they presented a flood model, it would
never stand up to scrutiny, so they instead pointed at several things
that conventional science didn't explain (probably about half of which
conventional science of the time did explain, and all of which it can
explain now) and yelled "Flood!". Most of their geology was stolen,
without giving credit, from George McCready Price.
They also addressed some of the common problems people had brought up
with the flood for centuries. Those are the most laughable parts of the
book. Where did the water come from? From a vapor canopy, in part.
How did the animals all fit? The median size was small. How did they
survive? Sheep can survive in boxcars for a few days, mostly. Why did
all insects not go extinct? They lived on vegetation rafts. The parts
of the Flood that Whitcomb & Morris do explain are uniformly ludicrous.
> [...]
> I'm not going to wade through the original thread, but I'd like to see
> someone demonstrate that the Genesis Flood by Witcomb and Morris is
> still viable creation science let alone science.
The ICR still advertizes it from time to time. They don't seem to
> someone demonstrate that the Genesis Flood by Witcomb and Morris is
> still viable creation science let alone science.
promote its contents, though. I think they just want the money
generated by the sales.
> Berlinski still goes on about not enough transitional fossils, but who
> even claims that the book is worth reading? The AIG is currently
> claiming that the continents moved to their current positions during
> the year of the flood. How do they explain that in the Genesis Flood?
never stand up to scrutiny, so they instead pointed at several things
that conventional science didn't explain (probably about half of which
conventional science of the time did explain, and all of which it can
explain now) and yelled "Flood!". Most of their geology was stolen,
without giving credit, from George McCready Price.
They also addressed some of the common problems people had brought up
with the flood for centuries. Those are the most laughable parts of the
book. Where did the water come from? From a vapor canopy, in part.
How did the animals all fit? The median size was small. How did they
survive? Sheep can survive in boxcars for a few days, mostly. Why did
all insects not go extinct? They lived on vegetation rafts. The parts
of the Flood that Whitcomb & Morris do explain are uniformly ludicrous.
Harry K
Dec 20, 2012, 1:38:10 PM12/20/12
to
Harry K
John Harshman
Dec 20, 2012, 2:41:26 PM12/20/12
to
flood ended in the Permian? I suppose you mean that the way to
distinguish flood sediments from post-flood sediments is that the latter
are terrestrial, so that any terrestrial deposit, of whatever age and
however placed relative to any marine deposit, is post-flood. Do you
just make this up as you go along?
>>> From a pamplet I dug up it
>>> gives a source for the Coconino and that subject is taken up in 2010
>>> under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," which
>>> words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
>>> current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
>>> Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." Nov. 2010
>>> Geological Society of America
>>
>>> I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>>
>> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
>> defend past claims.
> Huh? I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood.
No you didn't. You came up with a non-opinion that makes no claims. The
flood ends in the Permian because to you "Permian" is a meaningless
term, and thus what you meant was "whatever". Creationists have many
ideas of how the Grand Canyon formed, none of which you will defend. And
so on.
> I
> am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
> position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
> claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
discuss them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
John Harshman
Dec 20, 2012, 2:43:39 PM12/20/12
to
> Why, are you 'the subject' moderator? Why don't you just let it out,
> and say why you don't think something is worthy of a Flood scenario?
It's just ordinary good manners. If you don't know anything about a
> and say why you don't think something is worthy of a Flood scenario?
subject it's best to remain silent. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be
thinking is worthy of a flood scenario, since you have never stated any
flood scenario. (Just saying "there was a flood" isn't a scenario;
parroting things you don't understand isn't a scenario.)
John Harshman
Dec 20, 2012, 2:46:47 PM12/20/12
to
the claim.
>> As I've said, creationists can't agree even about the most basic facts,
>
> Wrong.
>> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
>> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
>> from other sediments?
>
> First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
> topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
> global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
> geology and have opinions, not.
nothing about the subject. But I do, and based on considerable
experience of the creationist literature, I can tell you that it's true:
they can't distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments. The few
who claim to do so are mutually contradictory.
Vincent Maycock
Dec 20, 2012, 3:03:50 PM12/20/12
to
development of extensive bioturbation, but not paleosols.
Malte Runz
Dec 20, 2012, 7:40:11 PM12/20/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> depostited. ...
I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
under several miles of water, right?
> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
You should've kept your legs crossed.
http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
you.
--
Malte Runz
news:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> depostited. ...
I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
under several miles of water, right?
> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
You should've kept your legs crossed.
http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
you.
--
Malte Runz
Ron O
Dec 21, 2012, 7:32:34 AM12/21/12
to
the BS section of the library with the other creation science books
(Bible Science category). The arguments all run together from those
bogus books (mainly because they repeated the same ones over and
over), but I recall that the Genesis flood was hard bound with a light
blue cover while the others were paperback. It is screwy what you
remember over a long period of time.
KSJJ repeated a lot of those arguments as if they were valid. Why did
any insects survive when they were not on the ark and everything that
creepth along the ground was supposed to have died? KSJJ's answer was
that insects did not have the breath of life so they were spared while
everything that breathed air died. Whales were brought up and then
there had to be whale tanks on the ark.
Sheep might survive in box cars for a few days, but they had to be on
the ark for around a year.
Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
more entertaining.
Ron Okimoto
Ernest Major
Dec 21, 2012, 12:17:20 PM12/21/12
to
In message
<98c8f254-a37e-4679...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
--
alias Ernest Major
<98c8f254-a37e-4679...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
O <roki...@cox.net> writes
>Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
>entertaining.
The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>entertaining.
coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
--
alias Ernest Major
Mark Isaak
Dec 21, 2012, 1:35:19 PM12/21/12
to
On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
> more entertaining.
There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
> more entertaining.
curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
world.
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:31:54 PM12/22/12
to
field. It's quite fun to read of the uniformitarians who make
damaging flood comments, and who have made claims for themselves that
floodists made years prior.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:39:11 PM12/22/12
to
of the laying of all earth's sediments are primarily done during and
after the global flood.
> >>> �From a pamplet I dug up it
> >>> gives a source for the Coconino and that subject is taken up in 2010
> >>> under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," �which
> >>> words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
> >>> current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
> >>> Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." �Nov. 2010
> >>> Geological Society of America
>
> >>> I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>
> >> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
> >> defend past claims.
> > Huh? �I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood.
>
> No you didn't. You came up with a non-opinion that makes no claims. The
> flood ends in the Permian because to you "Permian" is a meaningless
> term, and thus what you meant was "whatever". Creationists have many
> ideas of how the Grand Canyon formed, none of which you will defend. And
> so on.
>
It is to me, but not to the people who study it. They make statements
> >>> under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," �which
> >>> words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
> >>> current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
> >>> Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." �Nov. 2010
> >>> Geological Society of America
>
> >>> I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>
> >> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
> >> defend past claims.
> > Huh? �I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood.
>
> No you didn't. You came up with a non-opinion that makes no claims. The
> flood ends in the Permian because to you "Permian" is a meaningless
> term, and thus what you meant was "whatever". Creationists have many
> ideas of how the Grand Canyon formed, none of which you will defend. And
> so on.
>
on each period and how they fit into a flood model and how geology
when it gets into the historic, clings to basic wrong assumptions.
IOW, they will take all the periods and apply it to the great flood.
Why should I defend how the GC was formed, when there are more
scenarios in the uniformitarian side?
> > I
> > am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
> > position for myself. �I already believe in a global flood, just on the
> > claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
>
> In other words, you have no empirical basis for anything you say, and
> merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
> quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
>
I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
the ad hominem dodge.
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:42:31 PM12/22/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you think you know about a subject try speaking of it on a
> - Show quoted text -
scientific level. You must have missed the 1,000 replies before you
butted in. Everything in our world in a geological sense shows the
global flood, and that's what they try to get you to at least look
at. Most geologists don't because they have been imbredded to sign on
to a huge amount of time for something that really doesn't have to
take so much time, and paleontology is quite spoken about for their
errors in thinking as well.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:48:09 PM12/22/12
to
do.
> >> As I've said, creationists can't agree even about the most basic facts,
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Now there's a strong argument.
>
water, and all the geological and fossil finds. What they don't agree
on always is what might have caused layerings say of strata as being
during the flood or post flood, with ice ages etc.
> >> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
> >> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
> >> from other sediments?
>
> > First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
> > topics of interest. �The science-orientated ones that believe in a
> > global flood mostly do. �Some take the position of uniformitarian
> > geology and have opinions, not.
>
> Simply nodding agreement would have sufficed. Obviously, you know
> nothing about the subject. But I do, and based on considerable
> experience of the creationist literature, I can tell you that it's true:
> they can't distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments. The few
>
It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
Bible. All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
origin of the Bible account. The geology and fossils fit. Historic
Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
people would have to change careers immediately.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:52:26 PM12/22/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you're at least open minded. If you think it can be sudden,
> - Show quoted text -
then why all the need for millions of years between 'event happenings'
on the earth to make some sediment? It just isn't necessary and if
happened over such a time period why wouldn't it be much more than is
shown today? Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
the geological column fits in the flood model. You just have to read
up on it, or comment why you don't think it to be so.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 2:58:31 PM12/22/12
to
On Dec 20, 7:40�pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
> > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> You should've kept your legs crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
'latch on'?
> Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> you.
>
How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
for miles and miles, and never break? Why have we never seen it in
the present?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > depostited. �...
>
> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> under several miles of water, right?
>
You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
> (snip)
>
> > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > depostited. �...
>
> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> under several miles of water, right?
>
going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
> > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> You should've kept your legs crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
'latch on'?
> Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> you.
>
for miles and miles, and never break? Why have we never seen it in
the present?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 3:02:46 PM12/22/12
to
On Dec 21, 12:17�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
CJ
> In message
> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
> >entertaining.
>
> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
> >entertaining.
>
> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 3:01:53 PM12/22/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
> - Show quoted text -
defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 22, 2012, 3:06:40 PM12/22/12
to
that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
generated by one man who had a disdain for religion, and as most
students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
their bended-layered egos.
CJ
Ernest Major
Dec 22, 2012, 3:17:45 PM12/22/12
to
In message
<83043e3d-e283-419c...@u16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> writes
A "tree stuck between strata" is something that is expected by
mainstream geology.
Are you -
Still working on that beds of chalk several kilometers thick scenario?
Still working on that faunal succession scenario?
Still working on that aeolian sandstone scenario?
Still working on that evaporite deposits scenario?
Still working on that fossil coral reefs scenario?
Still working on that tillite scenario?
Still working on that coal measure (multiple coal seams) scenario?
Still working on that banded iron formation scenario?
Still working on that iridium layer scenario?
Still working on that flood basalt scenario?
Still working on that ophiolite scenario?
>
>CJ
>
--
alias Ernest Major
<83043e3d-e283-419c...@u16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
curtjester1 <curtj...@hotmail.com> writes
mainstream geology.
Are you -
Still working on that beds of chalk several kilometers thick scenario?
Still working on that faunal succession scenario?
Still working on that aeolian sandstone scenario?
Still working on that evaporite deposits scenario?
Still working on that fossil coral reefs scenario?
Still working on that tillite scenario?
Still working on that coal measure (multiple coal seams) scenario?
Still working on that banded iron formation scenario?
Still working on that iridium layer scenario?
Still working on that flood basalt scenario?
Still working on that ophiolite scenario?
>
>CJ
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
Dec 22, 2012, 4:16:30 PM12/22/12
to
> The opiners are ones who have spent years and years in the geology
> field.
Names?
> field.
>�It's quite fun to read of the uniformitarians who make
> damaging flood comments, and who have made claims for themselves that
> floodists made years prior.
Citations?
> floodists made years prior.
Boikat
John Harshman
Dec 22, 2012, 4:49:13 PM12/22/12
to
help with the main question here, which is how you tell what's flood and
what's post-flood.
>>>>> From a pamplet I dug up it
>>>>> gives a source for the Coconino and that subject is taken up in 2010
>>>>> under the "Widespread Dolomite in the Coconino Sandstone," which
>>>>> words were given "these findings are difficult to explain within
>>>>> current eolian models and may suggest a significant part of the
>>>>> Coconino may have been formed under marine conditions." Nov. 2010
>>>>> Geological Society of America
>>
>>>>> I am sure you follow Whitmore more than I do.
>>
>>>> So basically, you're claiming to know nothing, and are unwilling to
>>>> defend past claims.
>>> Huh? I just come up with the most accepted opinions of the Flood.
>>
>> No you didn't. You came up with a non-opinion that makes no claims. The
>> flood ends in the Permian because to you "Permian" is a meaningless
>> term, and thus what you meant was "whatever". Creationists have many
>> ideas of how the Grand Canyon formed, none of which you will defend. And
>> so on.
>>
> It is to me, but not to the people who study it. They make statements
> on each period and how they fit into a flood model and how geology
> when it gets into the historic, clings to basic wrong assumptions.
> IOW, they will take all the periods and apply it to the great flood.
> Why should I defend how the GC was formed, when there are more
> scenarios in the uniformitarian side?
even if they did, you have chosen the "Billy hit me first" defense,
which is not applicable beyond third grade, if at all.
So, is the Permian post-flood?
>>> I
>>> am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
>>> position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
>>> claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
>>
>> In other words, you have no empirical basis for anything you say, and
>> merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
>> quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
>> discuss them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>>
> I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
> actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> the ad hominem dodge.
I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
> actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> the ad hominem dodge.
impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
arguments.
John Harshman
Dec 22, 2012, 4:52:28 PM12/22/12
to
> If you think you know about a subject try speaking of it on a
> scientific level. You must have missed the 1,000 replies before you
> butted in. Everything in our world in a geological sense shows the
> global flood, and that's what they try to get you to at least look
> at. Most geologists don't because they have been imbredded to sign on
> to a huge amount of time for something that really doesn't have to
> take so much time, and paleontology is quite spoken about for their
> errors in thinking as well.
I'm not sure what word "imbredded" was supposed to be. I'm trying to
> scientific level. You must have missed the 1,000 replies before you
> butted in. Everything in our world in a geological sense shows the
> global flood, and that's what they try to get you to at least look
> at. Most geologists don't because they have been imbredded to sign on
> to a huge amount of time for something that really doesn't have to
> take so much time, and paleontology is quite spoken about for their
> errors in thinking as well.
make allowances for your limited English skills, but a lot of that
paragraph defeats me. If your 1,000 replies were anything like what I've
seen in your replies to me, you didn't say anything in those replies
either. All I ask is that you take some position and be willing to
support and defend it.
John Harshman
Dec 22, 2012, 4:55:31 PM12/22/12
to
pre-, post-, and during the flood.
>>>> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
>>>> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
>>>> from other sediments?
>>
>>> First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
>>> topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
>>> global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
>>> geology and have opinions, not.
>>
>> Simply nodding agreement would have sufficed. Obviously, you know
>> nothing about the subject. But I do, and based on considerable
>> experience of the creationist literature, I can tell you that it's true:
>> they can't distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments. The few
>> who claim to do so are mutually contradictory.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
> Bible.
> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
> origin of the Bible account.
have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
> The geology and fossils fit.
to argue specifics.
> Historic
> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> people would have to change careers immediately.
jillery
Dec 22, 2012, 8:35:50 PM12/22/12
to
true that most geologists support a Biblical Flood. In fact, most
geologists reject a Biblical Flood as a historical truth.
jillery
Dec 22, 2012, 8:36:31 PM12/22/12
to
understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
be able to understand:
<http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
<http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
<http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
Look at the first photo. There is more than one polystrate tree. They
are all standing. The article admits the area has "numerous"
polystrate trees. Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. Compare
them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. All this
suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
Helens. Look at the photos again from the ICR article. Now compare
them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. The polystrate
strata have no volcanic ash. There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
angles. There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
Boikat
Dec 22, 2012, 9:35:17 PM12/22/12
to
physical geology is better qualified to determine the fact from
fiction, when it comes to geology? Do you feel the same way about
physicians?
Boikat
Kermit
Dec 22, 2012, 9:52:07 PM12/22/12
to
Plate tectonics, kilometers of strata, magnetic striping and its
orientation, ancient meteorite craters worn by erosion and overlaid by
multiple later deposits, radiometric dating, that sort of thing.
> on the earth to make some sediment? �It just isn't necessary and if
> happened over such a time period why wouldn't it be much more than is
> shown today?
If the millions of years are needed to make X amount of a particular
sediment deposit, then why isn't there more of it?
> �Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
> the geological column fits in the flood model.
Yes, it's been said by liars and by ignorant people who do not wish to
be informed.
The fossil record shows ancient forms showing change over time, being
supplanted by more modern forms over time. Basically, ancient
communities covered by less ancient, etc. These records also reflect
changing climates, plate tectonics, etc - all activities requiring
*very long times. The various geological markers and records of
processes and the fossil record show a history if you will of Earth,
and all of those recorded processes - index fossils, sedimentary
deposits, climate changes, etc., all show the same time line.
The reason why floodists can't agree on particulars like which strata
are post-, during, or pre-flood are because there opinions aren't
based on the evidence. They try to re-interpret the evidence to fit
their myths, but the evidence doesn't support it (it contradicts it in
many ways) so it doesn't really bear close scrutiny.
> �You just have to read
> up on it, or comment why you don't think it to be so.
Read any introductory geology text.
>
> CJ
kermit
Kermit
Dec 22, 2012, 10:12:51 PM12/22/12
to
On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:40�pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > depostited. �...
>
> > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> > under several miles of water, right?
>
> You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. �It's
> going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. �I think
> that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
> On Dec 20, 7:40�pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > depostited. �...
>
> > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> > under several miles of water, right?
>
> You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. �It's
> going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. �I think
> that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
slowly?
The Indian plate, for example, has been moving north into South Asia
for tens of millions of years. The rocks have been shoved up into the
air, forming the Himalayan mountains. That rock has been bent *and
broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
>
> > > ... The uniformitarians
Modern geologists aren't uniformitarians.
> > > cling to a fact
Geologists, like other scientists, observe the world around them. Is
the Earth "clinging to the fact"?
> > > that some earth
> > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
much pressure of rocks. When they slip, earthquakes happen. Typically,
earthquakes are too sudden to cause rocks to bend without breaking,
Often it's the other way around - the plate slip past each other,
sometimes when something breaks and cause earthquakes.
>
> > You should've kept your legs crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
> Really, why? �Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> limitiations.
> �Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> 'latch on'?
Could you explain this using one metaphor or less?
>
> > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> > you.
>
> How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> for miles and miles, and never break?
continents. (There are other causes.)
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_%28geology%29
> �Why have we never seen it in
> the present?
Um, we do. North American and West Africa are moving apart at the
rate of about one centimeter per year.
>
> CJ
>
> > --
> > Malte Runz
Kermit
Mark Isaak
Dec 22, 2012, 10:52:11 PM12/22/12
to
On 12/22/12 11:58 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>>> depostited. ...
>>
>> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> under several miles of water, right?
>>
> You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
That something is called "the earth." Specifically, plate tectonics.
> On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>>> depostited. ...
>>
>> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> under several miles of water, right?
>>
> You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
You have been told of it already, repeatedly.
> It's going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron.
putting rocks and dirt on top of things? On the earth, that happens a
lot. In fact, it is impossible for that sort of weight-generated
pressure *not* to be happening underground. And, as a bonus, it's hot
down there, too.
> I think
> that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
>>> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
>>> bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
>>> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>>
>> You should've kept your legs crossed.
>> http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>>
> Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> 'latch on'?
>
>> Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
>> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
>> you.
>>
> How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> for miles and miles, and never break? Why have we never seen it in
> the present?
it done in machines that can generate that much pressure. We do not see
it happening today because few people go sightseeing a mile or more
underground.
Mark Isaak
Dec 22, 2012, 11:25:01 PM12/22/12
to
that some sediments were laid down before the flood and some after.
They do not agree about which. (Hardly surprising, since the evidence
-- that they were not deposited by a flood -- is the same for all the
layers.)
>> [...]
> I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions.
You're mind is made up so firmly that no facts can dissuade you. I have
> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions.
seen that for myself. If you can be that hard-headed, it is reasonable
to believe that other floodists can be equally dense, and see "flood" in
anything and everything.
As for the actual evidence for a global flood, though, it is imaginary.
I could claim that everything in the world is covered with elephant
footprints and come up with evidence as good as the floodists' flood
evidence. And, as you have demonstrated to me, if I have enough faith,
I could be sincerely and unswayably convinced that those elephant
footprints cover the earth.
> If you would
> actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> the ad hominem dodge.
geology than than you have. Unlike you, though, I have also read books
about actual floods and actual geology, and I have looked at the real thing.
Mark Isaak
Dec 22, 2012, 11:44:04 PM12/22/12
to
On 12/22/12 12:06 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
>>> more entertaining.
>>
>> There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
>> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
>> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
>> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
>> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
>> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
>> world.
>
> On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
>>> more entertaining.
>>
>> There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
>> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
>> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
>> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
>> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
>> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
>> world.
>
> And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
> that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> generated by one man who had a disdain for religion,
Do you realize that the "one man" you are referring to was ordained as a
> that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> generated by one man who had a disdain for religion,
clergyman in 1675, served as a bishop of Titopolis, and was beatified as
a saint by Pope John Paul II? How do you get "disdain for religion"
from that?
> and as most
> students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
> on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
> anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
> their bended-layered egos.
compelled by law or parents or both) is because you know that you do not
know everything, and if you continue being a student for more than a
couple years of college, you cannot help but learn that much of what you
thought you knew was wrong. Your complaint sounds like someone standing
rigidly afraid to dance, yelling to those who are dancing that they
cannot move.
Mark Isaak
Dec 22, 2012, 11:55:10 PM12/22/12
to
On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> [...]
kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
> [...]
> Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
> defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>
> I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
> on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
Ever kept silkworms? They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
> defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>
> I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
> on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
Mark Isaak
Dec 23, 2012, 12:16:48 AM12/23/12
to
On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> [big flood-carved snip]
> It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
> Bible.
That is not true. The Bible has a story of a flood. A story is not
> Bible.
documentation. In fact, treating a story as documentation usually
defeats the very purpose of the story. Insistence on a global flood
because the Bible says so is an insult to the Bible, by both definitions
of "insult".
> All societies speak of it their cultures,
floods. Others speak only of local floods. What is as clear as day is
that the vast majority of societies around the world do *not* speak of
the flood that is told of in the Bible.
> ... which has to be an origin of the Bible account.
Surely you have read the literature enough to know that the Bible
account derives from an earlier Babylonian account, with a Sumerian
account even older than that.
> The geology and fossils fit.
that the geology and fossils did not fit, and they still do not fit.
> Historic
> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> people would have to change careers immediately.
than they could hope for.
Ernest Major
Dec 23, 2012, 2:47:40 AM12/23/12
to
In message <ovncd85gtal2tdtsv...@4ax.com>, jillery
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
alias Ernest Major
<69jp...@gmail.com> writes
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
><curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 21, 12:17�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>>
>>> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
>>> >entertaining.
>>>
>>> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
>
>What's to work on? Polystrate trees have been recognized and
>understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
He might have intended to refer to polystrate trees, but what he wrote
><curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 21, 12:17�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message
>>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>>
>>> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
>>> >entertaining.
>>>
>>> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>>
>>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
>
>What's to work on? Polystrate trees have been recognized and
>understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
>
>But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
>be able to understand:
>
><http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete
>.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
>
><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
>Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
>Look at the first photo. There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>are all standing. The article admits the area has "numerous"
>polystrate trees. Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. Compare
>them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. All this
>suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
>This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>Helens. Look at the photos again from the ICR article. Now compare
>them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. The polystrate
>strata have no volcanic ash. There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>angles. There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
>The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>
--
>But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
>be able to understand:
>
><http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete
>.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
>
><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
>Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
>Look at the first photo. There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>are all standing. The article admits the area has "numerous"
>polystrate trees. Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. Compare
>them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. All this
>suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
>This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>Helens. Look at the photos again from the ICR article. Now compare
>them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. The polystrate
>strata have no volcanic ash. There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>angles. There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
>The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>
alias Ernest Major
Malte Runz
Dec 23, 2012, 5:28:41 AM12/23/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:55271064-5cba-4ad8...@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
And five miles of water isn't going to do the trick. Do you see the oceanic
seabeds crumble and fold under the pressure of water today?
> ... It's
started this debate I had no idea that you know so very little about the
topics.
> > > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
> >
> > You should've kept your legs
> > crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
> >
> Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> 'latch on'?
It's really difficult to make any sense of your words, but yes, geologists
know what causes rock to bend (and how and when they formed in the first
place).
>
> > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of
> > exclamation
> > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to
> > enlighten
> > you.
> >
> How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> for miles and miles, and never break? ...
Of course layers break sometimes. Sometimes they don't. You really love your
strawmen, don't you.
> ... Why have we never seen it in
> the present?
We do see it! But continents move (which is what causes almost all
earthquakes) very, very s l o w l y.
--
Malte Runz
news:55271064-5cba-4ad8...@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> > "curtjester1" skrev i
> > meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > depostited. ...
> >
> > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken
> > place
> > under several miles of water, right?
> >
> You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. ...
> On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> > "curtjester1" skrev i
> > meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > depostited. ...
> >
> > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken
> > place
> > under several miles of water, right?
> >
And five miles of water isn't going to do the trick. Do you see the oceanic
seabeds crumble and fold under the pressure of water today?
> ... It's
> going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
> that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
Earthquakes don't heat up existing rock and make it bend. When we first
> that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
started this debate I had no idea that you know so very little about the
topics.
> > > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
> >
> > You should've kept your legs
> > crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
> >
> Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> 'latch on'?
know what causes rock to bend (and how and when they formed in the first
place).
>
> > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of
> > exclamation
> > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to
> > enlighten
> > you.
> >
> How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
Of course layers break sometimes. Sometimes they don't. You really love your
strawmen, don't you.
> ... Why have we never seen it in
> the present?
We do see it! But continents move (which is what causes almost all
earthquakes) very, very s l o w l y.
--
Malte Runz
Malte Runz
Dec 23, 2012, 7:00:11 AM12/23/12
to
"curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsen
news:c7d00ed1-a612-4cee...@u13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> I think you're at least open minded. ...
Are you joking? Scientists have spend the last few hundred years being open
minded enough to reject ancient biblical dogmas. Take the Theory of
Evolution, plate tectonics, expanding Universe, 4,6 billion years old Earth,
Big Bang etc. How open minded can you get? Now you want them to return to
the closemindedness that only religion can create, and you have the nerve to
call it being "open minded".
> ... If you think it can be sudden,
Because the evidence shows that millions of years passed between some
events. Not all, but some. And by evidence I mean hard, cold data, gathered
and examined over years, studied, analysed and tested by both opponents and
proponents of the various theories.
> ... It just isn't necessary and if
It has been said, yes, but it's a lie. I know it's difficult for you to
realize, but there are people out there, who are working hard to keep people
like you ignorant and fill your head with untruths.
Here's the deal: The fossil record shows, beyond any doubt, that the
biblical flood did not happen.
> ... You just have to read
brought has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately you lack both the
education and the openmindedness to realize it.
--
Malte Runz
news:c7d00ed1-a612-4cee...@u13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
> I think you're at least open minded. ...
Are you joking? Scientists have spend the last few hundred years being open
minded enough to reject ancient biblical dogmas. Take the Theory of
Evolution, plate tectonics, expanding Universe, 4,6 billion years old Earth,
Big Bang etc. How open minded can you get? Now you want them to return to
the closemindedness that only religion can create, and you have the nerve to
call it being "open minded".
> ... If you think it can be sudden,
> then why all the need for millions of years between 'event happenings'
> on the earth to make some sediment? ...
Because the evidence shows that millions of years passed between some
events. Not all, but some. And by evidence I mean hard, cold data, gathered
and examined over years, studied, analysed and tested by both opponents and
proponents of the various theories.
> ... It just isn't necessary and if
> happened over such a time period why wouldn't it be much more than is
> shown today? Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
> the geological column fits in the flood model. ...
> shown today? Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
It has been said, yes, but it's a lie. I know it's difficult for you to
realize, but there are people out there, who are working hard to keep people
like you ignorant and fill your head with untruths.
Here's the deal: The fossil record shows, beyond any doubt, that the
biblical flood did not happen.
> ... You just have to read
> up on it, or comment why you don't think it to be so.
Did you read any of the comments in this thread? Each and every argument you
brought has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately you lack both the
education and the openmindedness to realize it.
--
Malte Runz
jillery
Dec 23, 2012, 7:06:35 AM12/23/12
to
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:47:40 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ovncd85gtal2tdtsv...@4ax.com>, jillery
><69jp...@gmail.com> writes
>>On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>><curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 21, 12:17�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>>>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>>>
>>>> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
>>>> >entertaining.
>>>>
>>>> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>>>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>
>>>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>>
>>What's to work on? Polystrate trees have been recognized and
>>understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
>He might have intended to refer to polystrate trees, but what he wrote
>was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
>tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
>and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
You are correct that secondary placement is also possible. IIUC these
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ovncd85gtal2tdtsv...@4ax.com>, jillery
><69jp...@gmail.com> writes
>>On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>><curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 21, 12:17�pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message
>>>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>>>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>>>
>>>> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? �KSJJ was more
>>>> >entertaining.
>>>>
>>>> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>>>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>>>> --
>>>> alias Ernest Major
>>>
>>>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>>
>>What's to work on? Polystrate trees have been recognized and
>>understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
>He might have intended to refer to polystrate trees, but what he wrote
>was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
>tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
>and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
are distinguishable from in situ placement. That Dawson considered
only the latter is not significant to the issue under discussion. What
matters is there are known geological processes which well explain
polystrate fossils of both types, in direct contradiction to
Creationist misrepresentations. Do you agree?
TomS
Dec 23, 2012, 10:11:05 AM12/23/12
to
"On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:55:31 -0800, in article
<yMSdnf3ZrvH...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
people from Australia and South America.
On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
>> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
>> origin of the Bible account.
>
>That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
>have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
In particular, now many societies speak of a *world-wide* flood?
>
>> The geology and fossils fit.
>
>In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
>to argue specifics.
For example, the complex specified structure of the ordering of the
fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
years?
>
>> Historic
>> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
>Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
>
As long as the issue of conspiracy has been raised, is one permitted
to wonder about the influence of job security on what preachers say?
--
---Tom S.
<yMSdnf3ZrvH...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...snip...]
>On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
>> Bible.
>
>You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
On the one hand, the Bible also documents that the Sun makes a daily
>> Bible.
>
>You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
people from Australia and South America.
On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
>> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
>> origin of the Bible account.
>
>That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
>have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>
>> The geology and fossils fit.
>
>In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
>to argue specifics.
fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
years?
>
>> Historic
>> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
>Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
>
to wonder about the influence of job security on what preachers say?
--
---Tom S.
TomS
Dec 23, 2012, 10:11:04 AM12/23/12
to
"On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:55:31 -0800, in article
<yMSdnf3ZrvH...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
<yMSdnf3ZrvH...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...snip...]
>> It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
>> Bible.
>
>You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
>> Bible.
>
>You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
On the one hand, the Bible also documents that the Sun makes a daily
orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
people from Australia and South America.
On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
people from Australia and South America.
On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
>> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
>> origin of the Bible account.
>
>That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
>have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>> origin of the Bible account.
>
>That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
>have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
In particular, now many societies speak of a *world-wide* flood?
>
>
>> The geology and fossils fit.
>
>In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
>to argue specifics.
>
>In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
>to argue specifics.
For example, the complex specified structure of the ordering of the
fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
years?
>
fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
years?
>
>> Historic
>> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
>Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
>
>> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
>Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
>
Ernest Major
Dec 23, 2012, 12:06:35 PM12/23/12
to
In message <93rdd8l0lsc6mcqvg...@4ax.com>, jillery
Yes.
alias Ernest Major
>
>
>>>But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
>>>be able to understand:
>>>
>>><http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete
>>>.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
>>>
>>><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>>>
>>>Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>>>
>>><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>>>
>>>Look at the first photo. There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>>>are all standing. The article admits the area has "numerous"
>>>polystrate trees. Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>>>Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. Compare
>>>them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. All this
>>>suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>>>buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>>>faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>>>
>>>This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>>>article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>>>Helens. Look at the photos again from the ICR article. Now compare
>>>them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. The polystrate
>>>strata have no volcanic ash. There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>>>angles. There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>>>
>>>The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>>>
>
--
>
>>>But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
>>>be able to understand:
>>>
>>><http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete
>>>.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
>>>
>>><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>>>
>>>Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>>>
>>><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>>>
>>>Look at the first photo. There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>>>are all standing. The article admits the area has "numerous"
>>>polystrate trees. Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>>>Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. Compare
>>>them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. All this
>>>suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>>>buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>>>faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>>>
>>>This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>>>article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>>>Helens. Look at the photos again from the ICR article. Now compare
>>>them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. The polystrate
>>>strata have no volcanic ash. There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>>>angles. There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>>>
>>>The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>>>
>
alias Ernest Major
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 12:43:58 PM12/30/12
to
> <83043e3d-e283-419c-8e8e-22ad3aea0...@u16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> writes
quick deposition. Mainstream geology teaches layers were formed
generally in the long term. They would have you believe say, that all
the sand in a layer of the GC was just blown there, or they would have
you believe the stratas with marine fossils in them would be in the
form of some 'age floodings'.
CJ
> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
> >> >entertaining.
>
> >> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> A "tree stuck between strata" is something that is expected by
> mainstream geology.
>
Why? If you have a tree stuck in layers of strata, you have a very
> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
> >> >entertaining.
>
> >> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> A "tree stuck between strata" is something that is expected by
> mainstream geology.
>
quick deposition. Mainstream geology teaches layers were formed
generally in the long term. They would have you believe say, that all
the sand in a layer of the GC was just blown there, or they would have
you believe the stratas with marine fossils in them would be in the
form of some 'age floodings'.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 12:47:19 PM12/30/12
to
have home computer access.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 12:51:36 PM12/30/12
to
or poor reading habits to deny it.
> So, is the Permian post-flood?
>
you (mainstream geologists assign) and think vs. their depositions
scenarios.
> >>> I
> >>> am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
> >>> position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
> >>> claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
>
> >> In other words, you have no empirical basis for anything you say, and
> >> merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
> >> quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
> >> discuss them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>
> > I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
> > unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
> > actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> > the ad hominem dodge.
>
> I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
> impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
> that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
> arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
> haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
>
You don't need to talk about me. I just reiterate what I read. It's
kinda like playing devil's advocate.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 12:53:35 PM12/30/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
You seem to need someone to play with. I am not your one to do that.
> - Show quoted text -
I already believe in the Biblical Flood just on Jesus Christ speaking
of it. Finding the flood evidences via the present is only a game
that geologists play. I am just playing along.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:04:52 PM12/30/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, that's why were here, to show that the old geology should become
> - Show quoted text -
newer. It used to be that the old geology were the floodists, and
people like Lydell and company changed all that.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:03:19 PM12/30/12
to
just showing that things arrived by a flood, and then proceeding to
define the severity of the waters. So, in the making of a layer of
the GC one needs to show where the materials came from. It seems
mainstream geology lacks, and the floodists have things very well
documented in their camp.
>
>
>
> >>>> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
> >>>> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
> >>>> from other sediments?
>
> >>> First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
> >>> topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
> >>> global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
> >>> geology and have opinions, not.
>
> >> Simply nodding agreement would have sufficed. Obviously, you know
> >> nothing about the subject. But I do, and based on considerable
> >> experience of the creationist literature, I can tell you that it's true:
> >> they can't distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments. The few
> >> who claim to do so are mutually contradictory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
> > Bible.
>
> You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
>
> > All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
> > origin of the Bible account.
>
> That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
> have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>
have an unhappy god, a boat and survivors. If you read about them you
will see how extensive it is.
> > The geology and fossils fit.
>
> In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
> to argue specifics.
>
fossils are in sudden death graveyards, to the fossil column going
horizontal, to the layers of fossils not matching the columns, etc,
etc.
> > Historic
> > Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> > people would have to change careers immediately.
>
>
Well, the ones that depend on the historic record of the past would.
The authors who are noted scholars in the geological field would
gladly show what geological sciences are spot on, and do.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 1:06:41 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:47:19 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>The Genesis Flood with Whitcomb and Morris is full of them. I don't
>have home computer access.
Whitcomb and Morris is a parody of science writing.
>have home computer access.
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 1:08:18 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:53:35 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
false doctrine to claim that Noah's Flood really happened.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>You seem to need someone to play with. I am not your one to do that.
>I already believe in the Biblical Flood just on Jesus Christ speaking
>of it. Finding the flood evidences via the present is only a game
>that geologists play. I am just playing along.
The physical evidence shows that Noah's Flood never happened. It is
>I already believe in the Biblical Flood just on Jesus Christ speaking
>of it. Finding the flood evidences via the present is only a game
>that geologists play. I am just playing along.
false doctrine to claim that Noah's Flood really happened.
John Harshman
Dec 30, 2012, 1:11:53 PM12/30/12
to
>> So, is the Permian post-flood?
>>
> Just read em. The floodists are quite nice in detailing what period
> you (mainstream geologists assign) and think vs. their depositions
> scenarios.
creationists. There are many, and they contradict each other.
>>>>> I
>>>>> am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
>>>>> position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
>>>>> claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
>>
>>>> In other words, you have no empirical basis for anything you say, and
>>>> merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
>>>> quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
>>>> discuss them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>>
>>> I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
>>> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
>>> actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
>>> the ad hominem dodge.
>>
>> I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
>> impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
>> that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
>> arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
>> haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
>> arguments.
>>
> You don't need to talk about me. I just reiterate what I read. It's
> kinda like playing devil's advocate.
Not true. A devil's advocate makes arguments of his own and is willing
> kinda like playing devil's advocate.
to defend his claims, rather than just saying "the devil made me do it".
John Harshman
Dec 30, 2012, 1:12:56 PM12/30/12
to
> You seem to need someone to play with. I am not your one to do that.
> I already believe in the Biblical Flood just on Jesus Christ speaking
> of it. Finding the flood evidences via the present is only a game
> that geologists play. I am just playing along.
What is your purpose in all these hundreds of posts?
> I already believe in the Biblical Flood just on Jesus Christ speaking
> of it. Finding the flood evidences via the present is only a game
> that geologists play. I am just playing along.
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:17:05 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 8:36�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
What I see is that geology 'has' to say that its true and can't deny
it. As for the explanation, it seems they say, sudden for strata, and
not for others. Well, if sudden enters the equation in any numerous
sightings, what is that going to say about all these millions of years
for strata making? Seems like if its that easy to make strata
quickly, it might not be so necessary to make it over a long period,
eh? And some of these long term deals get to be quite hard to imagine
if one is going to blow sand to a very specific spot when we know that
sand blows all sorts of directions with the wind it experiences each
moment, eh?
> <http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
> Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
> <http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
> Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
> are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
> polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
> Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
> them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
> suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
> buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
> faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
Hmm, buried forests. Non-catastrophic. Is that to say that can't
ever be buried catastrophically? I do have a buried forest in one of
these pages. Do tell.
> This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
> article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
> Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
> them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
> strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
> angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
Explanations are many and when you see that your's has differing
potentials within their own camps, it becomes less forceful. That is
never brought up, it seems. And Mt. St. Helens is used by floodists,
and not all acts of nature are due to a flood. So......
> The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
Your using one tiny example. And you are seeminly trying to say, that
trees going through strata not caused by a volcanic eruption is a
proof of some kind. Please expound.
CJ
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
> >> >entertaining.
>
> >> >entertaining.
>
> >> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> What's to work on? �Polystrate trees have been recognized and
> understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
> understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
> But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
> be able to understand:
>
> <http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomple...>
> be able to understand:
>
>
What I see is that geology 'has' to say that its true and can't deny
it. As for the explanation, it seems they say, sudden for strata, and
not for others. Well, if sudden enters the equation in any numerous
sightings, what is that going to say about all these millions of years
for strata making? Seems like if its that easy to make strata
quickly, it might not be so necessary to make it over a long period,
eh? And some of these long term deals get to be quite hard to imagine
if one is going to blow sand to a very specific spot when we know that
sand blows all sorts of directions with the wind it experiences each
moment, eh?
> <http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
> Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
> <http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
> Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
> are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
> polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
> Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
> them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
> suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
> buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
> faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
ever be buried catastrophically? I do have a buried forest in one of
these pages. Do tell.
> This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
> article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
> Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
> them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
> strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
> angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
potentials within their own camps, it becomes less forceful. That is
never brought up, it seems. And Mt. St. Helens is used by floodists,
and not all acts of nature are due to a flood. So......
> The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
trees going through strata not caused by a volcanic eruption is a
proof of some kind. Please expound.
CJ
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:22:10 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 9:35�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> physical geology is better qualified to determine the fact from
> fiction, when it comes to geology? �Do you feel the same way about
> physicians?
perform surgeries and prescribe medicines. It's basically true of
just about any field, even religion. I think you have geologists who
are much more sophisticated than you or anyone here saying that the
flood happened. So it doesn't go as far as the issue itself. I have
just read a book about how ancient man was taken for granted and how
much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
areas. To the student of today, that is like heresy because they have
been taught they are the creme de la creme of knowledge and thinking.
Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
them many a time.
CJ
> On Dec 22, 2:06 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
> > > > Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
> > > > more entertaining.
>
> > > > more entertaining.
>
> > > There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
> > > curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
> > > loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
> > > suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
> > > community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
> > > pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
> > > world.
>
> > > curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
> > > loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
> > > suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
> > > community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
> > > pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
> > > world.
>
> > > --
> > > 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
> > > 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
>
> > And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
> > that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> > generated by one man who had a disdain for religion, and as most
> > students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
> > on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
> > anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
> > their bended-layered egos.
>
> So, you're saying that someone, like you, who has never studied actual
>
> > And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
> > that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> > generated by one man who had a disdain for religion, and as most
> > students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
> > on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
> > anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
> > their bended-layered egos.
>
> physical geology is better qualified to determine the fact from
> fiction, when it comes to geology? �Do you feel the same way about
> physicians?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
To some degree yes. I think money is a great motivator for doctors to
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
perform surgeries and prescribe medicines. It's basically true of
just about any field, even religion. I think you have geologists who
are much more sophisticated than you or anyone here saying that the
flood happened. So it doesn't go as far as the issue itself. I have
just read a book about how ancient man was taken for granted and how
much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
areas. To the student of today, that is like heresy because they have
been taught they are the creme de la creme of knowledge and thinking.
Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
them many a time.
CJ
John Harshman
Dec 30, 2012, 1:20:49 PM12/30/12
to
> What is the most important is
> just showing that things arrived by a flood, and then proceeding to
> define the severity of the waters. So, in the making of a layer of
> the GC one needs to show where the materials came from. It seems
> mainstream geology lacks, and the floodists have things very well
> documented in their camp.
point of deposition. For others, the source areas for many formations
are known, but I don't know about that for the Grand Canyon. Where do
floodists thing the sediments in the canyon came from?
>>>>>> things that should be very clear if their ideas were correct. You mean
>>>>>> they can't even distinguish sediments laid down during a global flood
>>>>>> from other sediments?
>>
>>>>> First, most creationists don't even have this on their radar for
>>>>> topics of interest. The science-orientated ones that believe in a
>>>>> global flood mostly do. Some take the position of uniformitarian
>>>>> geology and have opinions, not.
>>
>>>> Simply nodding agreement would have sufficed. Obviously, you know
>>>> nothing about the subject. But I do, and based on considerable
>>>> experience of the creationist literature, I can tell you that it's true:
>>>> they can't distinguish flood sediments from non-flood sediments. The few
>>>> who claim to do so are mutually contradictory.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
>>> Bible.
>>
>> You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
>>
> Yes. It's quite a topic written on a lot.
>>> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
>>> origin of the Bible account.
>>
>> That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
>> have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>>
> How about 500 of them spread all over the earth? All those accounts
> have an unhappy god, a boat and survivors. If you read about them you
> will see how extensive it is.
and all sorts of disaster legends, some of which are flood legends, and
some of which have an unhappy god, or a boat, or survivors. But there is
no universal common story as you seem to imagine.
>>> The geology and fossils fit.
>>
>> In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
>> to argue specifics.
>>
> Well if you got specific with them, they would show you how some
> fossils are in sudden death graveyards, to the fossil column going
> horizontal, to the layers of fossils not matching the columns, etc,
> etc.
are quite sufficient. Not sure what you mean by "the fossil column going
horizontal"; if you mean that some strata are tilted, I don't see what
that has to do with a flood. Nor do I have any idea what "layers of
fossils not matching the columns" would mean, or what that would have to
do with a flood.
>>> Historic
>>> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>>> people would have to change careers immediately.
>>
>> Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
> Well, the ones that depend on the historic record of the past would.
> The authors who are noted scholars in the geological field would
> gladly show what geological sciences are spot on, and do.
Your limited English skills have once more made your meaning opaque. Are
> The authors who are noted scholars in the geological field would
> gladly show what geological sciences are spot on, and do.
you denying or affirming a worldwide conspiracy among geologists and
biologists?
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 1:26:53 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:22:10 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Accusing scientists of fraud is easy to do, but you need to back it up
with actual evidence on your part. I will not hold my breath waiting for
you to start to learn science, however.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
with actual evidence on your part. I will not hold my breath waiting for
you to start to learn science, however.
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:30:34 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 9:52�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 22 Dec, 11:52, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 3:03 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:28:47 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> > > development of extensive bioturbation, but not paleosols.- Hide quoted text -
> Plate tectonics, kilometers of strata, magnetic striping and its
> orientation, ancient meteorite craters worn by erosion and overlaid by
> multiple later deposits, radiometric dating, that sort of thing.
>
They take issue with all that and speak on each issue.
> > on the earth to make some sediment? It just isn't necessary and if
> If the millions of years are needed to make X amount of a particular
> sediment deposit, then why isn't there more of it?
>
Sediment happens very quickly in a flood. It happens suddenly and to
think it takes a million years for everything you see in a
topographical earth is just not needed to many.
> > Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
> > the geological column fits in the flood model.
>
> Yes, it's been said by liars and by ignorant people who do not wish to
> be informed.
>
Oh they go quite extensively into the 'anomolies'. You can read and
answer them.
> The fossil record shows ancient forms showing change over time, being
> supplanted by more modern forms over time. Basically, ancient
> communities covered by less ancient, etc. These records also reflect
> changing climates, plate tectonics, etc - all activities requiring
> *very long times. The various geological markers and records of
> processes and the fossil record show a history if you will of Earth,
> and all of those recorded processes - index fossils, sedimentary
> deposits, climate changes, etc., all show the same time line.
>
Not according to them, that find the lowest forms ahigh on
mountaintops, or columns not matching their so-called ages.
> The reason why floodists can't agree on particulars like which strata
> are post-, during, or pre-flood are because there opinions aren't
> based on the evidence. They try to re-interpret the evidence to fit
> their myths, but the evidence doesn't support it (it contradicts it in
> many ways) so it doesn't really bear close scrutiny.
>
Well when you are taught that you can see the past from the present,
makes you like a Perma Crystal Baller. The evidence does support a
flood where you don't see it or want to see it. Floodists have over
1,600 sites across the U.S. and Canada where they measure where the
sediments came from to form a layer in the GC, where there is nothing
around the GC that would form it, and can calculate the flood's path,
and exact location of where it came from via radioactive datings. It
leaves no room for any uniformitarian scenarios.
> > You just have to read
> > up on it, or comment why you don't think it to be so.
>
> Read any introductory geology text.
>
>
Read from geologists that know more than you.
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> kermit- Hide quoted text -
> On 22 Dec, 11:52, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 3:03 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:28:47 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:00:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> snip
>
> > > >> >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> > > >> >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> > > >> >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> > > >> >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> > > >> >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> > > >> >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> > > >> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> snip
>
> > > >> >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> > > >> >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> > > >> >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> > > >> >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> > > >> >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> > > >> >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> > > >> >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> >Here's one from CRC, then. The polystrate fossil lycopod (giant reed
> > > >> >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> > > >> >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> > > >> >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> > > >> >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> > > >> >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> > > >> >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> > > >> >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> > > >> So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> > > >> equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> > > >> e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
> > > >> know that deposition has been slower.- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> > > >> >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> > > >> >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> > > >> >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> > > >> >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> > > >> >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> > > >> >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> > > >> So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> > > >> equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> > > >> e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > >I'm not sure that would satsify many, as even floodists opine on many
> > > >potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
>
> > > Slow deposition during the supposed Flood might allow for the
> > > >potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
>
> > > development of extensive bioturbation, but not paleosols.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I think you're at least open minded. If you think it can be sudden,
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > then why all the need for millions of years between 'event happenings'
>
> The need for billions of years is to explain all the evidence.
>
> Plate tectonics, kilometers of strata, magnetic striping and its
> orientation, ancient meteorite craters worn by erosion and overlaid by
> multiple later deposits, radiometric dating, that sort of thing.
>
They take issue with all that and speak on each issue.
> > on the earth to make some sediment? It just isn't necessary and if
> > happened over such a time period why wouldn't it be much more than is
> > shown today?
>
> Umm... what?
> > shown today?
>
> If the millions of years are needed to make X amount of a particular
> sediment deposit, then why isn't there more of it?
>
Sediment happens very quickly in a flood. It happens suddenly and to
think it takes a million years for everything you see in a
topographical earth is just not needed to many.
> > Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
> > the geological column fits in the flood model.
>
> be informed.
>
Oh they go quite extensively into the 'anomolies'. You can read and
answer them.
> The fossil record shows ancient forms showing change over time, being
> supplanted by more modern forms over time. Basically, ancient
> communities covered by less ancient, etc. These records also reflect
> changing climates, plate tectonics, etc - all activities requiring
> *very long times. The various geological markers and records of
> processes and the fossil record show a history if you will of Earth,
> and all of those recorded processes - index fossils, sedimentary
> deposits, climate changes, etc., all show the same time line.
>
Not according to them, that find the lowest forms ahigh on
mountaintops, or columns not matching their so-called ages.
> The reason why floodists can't agree on particulars like which strata
> are post-, during, or pre-flood are because there opinions aren't
> based on the evidence. They try to re-interpret the evidence to fit
> their myths, but the evidence doesn't support it (it contradicts it in
> many ways) so it doesn't really bear close scrutiny.
>
Well when you are taught that you can see the past from the present,
makes you like a Perma Crystal Baller. The evidence does support a
flood where you don't see it or want to see it. Floodists have over
1,600 sites across the U.S. and Canada where they measure where the
sediments came from to form a layer in the GC, where there is nothing
around the GC that would form it, and can calculate the flood's path,
and exact location of where it came from via radioactive datings. It
leaves no room for any uniformitarian scenarios.
> > You just have to read
>
> Read any introductory geology text.
>
>
Read from geologists that know more than you.
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> kermit- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:39:43 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 10:12�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> slowly?
>
Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
> The Indian plate, for example, has been moving north into South Asia
> for tens of millions of years. The rocks have been shoved up into the
> air, forming the Himalayan mountains. That rock has been bent *and
> broken.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
>
>
What are you going to say to the rock stratas that go for miles and
miles that don't break?
>
> > > > ... The uniformitarians
>
> Modern geologists aren't uniformitarians.
>
Well one who have to say your wrong, but you can explain that if you
would like.
> > > > cling to a fact
>
> Geologists, like other scientists, observe the world around them. Is
> the Earth "clinging to the fact"?
>
But when it is asked to unmask the past, they are in their most
vulnerable state, relying on assumptions rather than things that can
be proved without using the assumptions as true.
> > > > that some earth
> > > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > > bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> The continents are moving. They are very slow, and very heavy, and put
> much pressure of rocks. When they slip, earthquakes happen. Typically,
> earthquakes are too sudden to cause rocks to bend without breaking,
How? Its stated you need warm, cement-like conditions that are new to
make something bend without breaking.
> Often it's the other way around - the plate slip past each other,
> sometimes when something breaks and cause earthquakes.
>
I would have to bring in what the commentators have said about that,
and I don't have the books with me.
> > Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> > 'latch on'?
>
> Could you explain this using one metaphor or less?
>
>
We want to know emphatically how something arises than just
theorizing's over a long age, especially when your side admits that
sudden, catastrophies are aplenty.
>
> > > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> > > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> > > you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> > for miles and miles, and never break?
>
> You need lots of pressure and lots of time, like ponderously moving
> continents. (There are other causes.)
> Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_%28geology%29
>
And yet geologists will say things like Great Britains (break from a
continent) or Gibraltar were caused by a massive flood, (without
trying to assign a global flood to it).
> > Why have we never seen it in
> > the present?
>
> Um, we do. �North American and West Africa are moving apart at the
> rate of about one centimeter per year.
>
>
A flood can cause that very quickly, even if it moved at that rate.
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> > > --
> > > Malte Runz
>
> Kermit
> On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > > depostited. ...
>
> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> > > under several miles of water, right?
>
> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > > depostited. ...
>
> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> > > under several miles of water, right?
>
> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
> Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
> slowly?
>
Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
> The Indian plate, for example, has been moving north into South Asia
> for tens of millions of years. The rocks have been shoved up into the
> air, forming the Himalayan mountains. That rock has been bent *and
> broken.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas
>
>
What are you going to say to the rock stratas that go for miles and
miles that don't break?
>
> > > > ... The uniformitarians
>
> Modern geologists aren't uniformitarians.
>
Well one who have to say your wrong, but you can explain that if you
would like.
> > > > cling to a fact
>
> Geologists, like other scientists, observe the world around them. Is
> the Earth "clinging to the fact"?
>
But when it is asked to unmask the past, they are in their most
vulnerable state, relying on assumptions rather than things that can
be proved without using the assumptions as true.
> > > > that some earth
> > > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > > bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> much pressure of rocks. When they slip, earthquakes happen. Typically,
> earthquakes are too sudden to cause rocks to bend without breaking,
How? Its stated you need warm, cement-like conditions that are new to
make something bend without breaking.
> Often it's the other way around - the plate slip past each other,
> sometimes when something breaks and cause earthquakes.
>
>
>
> > > You should've kept your legs crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
> > Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > limitiations.
>
> Could you explain what �you mean by limitations?
>
>
> > > You should've kept your legs crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
> > Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > limitiations.
>
>
I would have to bring in what the commentators have said about that,
and I don't have the books with me.
> > Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> > 'latch on'?
>
>
>
We want to know emphatically how something arises than just
theorizing's over a long age, especially when your side admits that
sudden, catastrophies are aplenty.
>
> > > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> > > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> > > you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> > for miles and miles, and never break?
>
> continents. (There are other causes.)
> Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_%28geology%29
>
And yet geologists will say things like Great Britains (break from a
continent) or Gibraltar were caused by a massive flood, (without
trying to assign a global flood to it).
> > Why have we never seen it in
> > the present?
>
> rate of about one centimeter per year.
>
>
A flood can cause that very quickly, even if it moved at that rate.
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> > > --
> > > Malte Runz
>
> Kermit
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:43:22 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 10:52�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> You have been told of it already, repeatedly.
> putting rocks and dirt on top of things? �On the earth, that happens a
> lot. �In fact, it is impossible for that sort of weight-generated
> pressure *not* to be happening underground. �And, as a bonus, it's hot
> down there, too.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > 'latch on'?
>
> > the present?
>
> Rock can bend when it's under lots and lots of pressure. �We *have* seen
> it done in machines that can generate that much pressure. �We do not see
> it happening today because few people go sightseeing a mile or more
> underground.
>
Try it wihout using a volcanic eruption. Bending without breaking is
the real issue. One would need 'rock' in a soft state. Once its
hard, its hard to imagine that it can be reheated and rearranged with
a great force of nature without bending for say 250 miles.
CJ
> --
> 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- Hide quoted text -
> On 12/22/12 11:58 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> >>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> >>> depostited. �...
>
> >> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> >> under several miles of water, right?
>
> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
>
> That something is called "the earth." �Specifically, plate tectonics.
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> >> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> >>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> >>> depostited. �...
>
> >> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
> >> under several miles of water, right?
>
> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
>
> You have been told of it already, repeatedly.
>
> > It's going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron.
>
> More pressure than heat. �Did you know you can generate pressure by
> > It's going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron.
>
> putting rocks and dirt on top of things? �On the earth, that happens a
> lot. �In fact, it is impossible for that sort of weight-generated
> pressure *not* to be happening underground. �And, as a bonus, it's hot
> down there, too.
>
> > I think
> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
> Plate tectonics. �Go away and don't come back until you grok it.
> > I think
> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> >>> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> >>> bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> >>> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> >>> bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> >>> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> >> You should've kept your legs crossed.
> >>http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
> > Really, why? �Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > limitiations. �Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> >>http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>
> > Really, why? �Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > 'latch on'?
>
> >> Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
> >> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> >> you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> > for miles and miles, and never break? �Why have we never seen it in
> >> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
> >> you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> > the present?
>
> Rock can bend when it's under lots and lots of pressure. �We *have* seen
> it done in machines that can generate that much pressure. �We do not see
> it happening today because few people go sightseeing a mile or more
> underground.
>
Try it wihout using a volcanic eruption. Bending without breaking is
the real issue. One would need 'rock' in a soft state. Once its
hard, its hard to imagine that it can be reheated and rearranged with
a great force of nature without bending for say 250 miles.
CJ
> --
> 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
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 1:45:30 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:39:43 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 22, 10:12�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > (snip)
>>
>> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> > > > depostited. ...
>>
>> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> > > under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
>> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
>> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>> Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
>> slowly?
>>
>Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
No such thing exists. No geologists accept the claim that Noah's Flood
happened.
...
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 22, 10:12�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > (snip)
>>
>> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> > > > depostited. ...
>>
>> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> > > under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
>> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
>> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>> Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
>> slowly?
>>
>Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
happened.
...
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 1:54:34 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:43:22 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Rocks are reheated and twisted all the time. Do you know anything about
geology?
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
geology?
curtjester1
Dec 30, 2012, 1:56:37 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 11:25 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> Yes, that is precise, concise, and wrong. The floodists generally allow
> that some sediments were laid down before the flood and some after.
> They do not agree about which. (Hardly surprising, since the evidence
> -- that they were not deposited by a flood -- is the same for all the
> layers.)
>
It's not surprising as there are so many potential scenarios of what
could happen during the flood vs. runoffs, change of weather systems,
etc, etc. BUT the geologists have just as many if not more
problematic situations as they can't agree either, and can't explain
the sudden layer scenarios that floodists show in their evidentiary
trails.
> >> [...]
> seen that for myself. If you can be that hard-headed, it is reasonable
> to believe that other floodists can be equally dense, and see "flood" in
> anything and everything.
>
I see nothing that has uniformitarianism as being prove-worthy. I do
see the geological column challenged, the old age depostions
challenged, the flood proofs of graveyards of fossils and many more
things 'not counteracted' by anything other than theory that always
has a great imagination and time factor involved for an
'explanation'. I don't think that is being hard-headed at all when
one doesn't just quite buy into something so subjective at its onset.
> As for the actual evidence for a global flood, though, it is imaginary.
> I could claim that everything in the world is covered with elephant
> footprints and come up with evidence as good as the floodists' flood
> evidence. And, as you have demonstrated to me, if I have enough faith,
> I could be sincerely and unswayably convinced that those elephant
> footprints cover the earth.
>
When you plug in water for things that uniformitarianism is using
imagery to begin with, is the only hope you will find a plausible
explanation. Quartz in layers in the GC is one example. No quartz in
the one below it, and the Hermit and Coconino are stratas that extend
'together' going north. It had to arrive from somewhere, and there is
no uniformitarian explanation even capable via scenario. Yet it will
fly off like water off a ducks back with you. Yet, the floodists show
exactly where it came from, documenting 1,600+ sites over the U.S. and
Canada where it came from and what trail it took.
> > If you would
> > actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> > the ad hominem dodge.
>
> I would be astounded if I have not read more books promoting flood
> geology than than you have. Unlike you, though, I have also read books
> about actual floods and actual geology, and I have looked at the real thing.
>
It would be nice if you were capable of showing that in good sentence
logic and structure. You haven't.
> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 2:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/20/12 9:18 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2:30 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 17, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 15, 4:31 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/12 12:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 4:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 7:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 2:41 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/20/12 9:18 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 19, 2:30 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 12/19/12 11:19 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 17, 4:46 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 12/17/12 1:14 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 15, 4:31 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/15/12 12:08 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 4:32 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/13/12 1:07 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 7:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/12 3:55 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:> On 12/12/12 12:38 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood. Anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You obviously haven't read what the Coconino has been shown by the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> global flood proofs and I don't expect you to.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Windblown sand, almost pure, with multiple tracks of land animals. I can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> think of few things that would be *less* improbable in a flood. Anyone
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> looking to explain the Coconino would propose a flood only as a joke.
>
> that some sediments were laid down before the flood and some after.
> They do not agree about which. (Hardly surprising, since the evidence
> -- that they were not deposited by a flood -- is the same for all the
> layers.)
>
It's not surprising as there are so many potential scenarios of what
could happen during the flood vs. runoffs, change of weather systems,
etc, etc. BUT the geologists have just as many if not more
problematic situations as they can't agree either, and can't explain
the sudden layer scenarios that floodists show in their evidentiary
trails.
> >> [...]
> > I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
> > unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions.
>
> You're mind is made up so firmly that no facts can dissuade you. I have
> > unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions.
>
> seen that for myself. If you can be that hard-headed, it is reasonable
> to believe that other floodists can be equally dense, and see "flood" in
> anything and everything.
>
I see nothing that has uniformitarianism as being prove-worthy. I do
see the geological column challenged, the old age depostions
challenged, the flood proofs of graveyards of fossils and many more
things 'not counteracted' by anything other than theory that always
has a great imagination and time factor involved for an
'explanation'. I don't think that is being hard-headed at all when
one doesn't just quite buy into something so subjective at its onset.
> As for the actual evidence for a global flood, though, it is imaginary.
> I could claim that everything in the world is covered with elephant
> footprints and come up with evidence as good as the floodists' flood
> evidence. And, as you have demonstrated to me, if I have enough faith,
> I could be sincerely and unswayably convinced that those elephant
> footprints cover the earth.
>
When you plug in water for things that uniformitarianism is using
imagery to begin with, is the only hope you will find a plausible
explanation. Quartz in layers in the GC is one example. No quartz in
the one below it, and the Hermit and Coconino are stratas that extend
'together' going north. It had to arrive from somewhere, and there is
no uniformitarian explanation even capable via scenario. Yet it will
fly off like water off a ducks back with you. Yet, the floodists show
exactly where it came from, documenting 1,600+ sites over the U.S. and
Canada where it came from and what trail it took.
> > If you would
> > actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> > the ad hominem dodge.
>
> geology than than you have. Unlike you, though, I have also read books
> about actual floods and actual geology, and I have looked at the real thing.
>
It would be nice if you were capable of showing that in good sentence
logic and structure. You haven't.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:09:51 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 11:44 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> clergyman in 1675, served as a bishop of Titopolis, and was beatified as
> a saint by Pope John Paul II? How do you get "disdain for religion"
> from that?
>
Probably the wrong one as they think the one most influential was one
from the 1800's. And Popeism isn't anything to hand a hat on. Did
you know that four met death via being caught by the significant other
in a sexual indiscretion?
> > and as most
> > students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
> > on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
> > anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
> > their bended-layered egos.
>
> The only reason to choose to be a student (I'm not counting those
> compelled by law or parents or both) is because you know that you do not
> know everything, and if you continue being a student for more than a
> couple years of college, you cannot help but learn that much of what you
> thought you knew was wrong. Your complaint sounds like someone standing
> rigidly afraid to dance, yelling to those who are dancing that they
> cannot move.
>
Yet, the ones making up these scenarios have more time in their craft
than your instructors. You really need to just focus in on the
evidentiary trails.
> On 12/22/12 12:06 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
> >>> more entertaining.
>
> >> There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
> >> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
> >> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
> >> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
> >> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
> >> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
> >> world.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
> >>> more entertaining.
>
> >> There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
> >> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
> >> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
> >> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
> >> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
> >> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
> >> world.
>
> > And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
> > that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> > generated by one man who had a disdain for religion,
>
> Do you realize that the "one man" you are referring to was ordained as a
> > that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
> > generated by one man who had a disdain for religion,
>
> clergyman in 1675, served as a bishop of Titopolis, and was beatified as
> a saint by Pope John Paul II? How do you get "disdain for religion"
> from that?
>
Probably the wrong one as they think the one most influential was one
from the 1800's. And Popeism isn't anything to hand a hat on. Did
you know that four met death via being caught by the significant other
in a sexual indiscretion?
> > and as most
> > students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
> > on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
> > anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
> > their bended-layered egos.
>
> compelled by law or parents or both) is because you know that you do not
> know everything, and if you continue being a student for more than a
> couple years of college, you cannot help but learn that much of what you
> thought you knew was wrong. Your complaint sounds like someone standing
> rigidly afraid to dance, yelling to those who are dancing that they
> cannot move.
>
Yet, the ones making up these scenarios have more time in their craft
than your instructors. You really need to just focus in on the
evidentiary trails.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:11:59 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 22, 11:55�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
> > defeated insects living through a flood? �Ouch!
>
> > I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
> > on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>
> Ever kept silkworms? �They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
> kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
> four days. �So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. �And that's
> just one insect. �Other insects need a living giant sequoia. �Might be a
> bit of a trick getting that on the ark. �The same goes for several
> thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. �And
> we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
> soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>
Maybe silkworms weren't silk worms yet. Maybe the dog chased the cat
who ate the canary.....
Maybe Noah had Mulberry trees, after all he made a vineyard when he
left the Ark.
> On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
> > defeated insects living through a flood? �Ouch!
>
> > I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
> > on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>
> Ever kept silkworms? �They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
> kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
> four days. �So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. �And that's
> just one insect. �Other insects need a living giant sequoia. �Might be a
> bit of a trick getting that on the ark. �The same goes for several
> thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. �And
> we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
> soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>
Maybe silkworms weren't silk worms yet. Maybe the dog chased the cat
who ate the canary.....
Maybe Noah had Mulberry trees, after all he made a vineyard when he
left the Ark.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:14:23 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 23, 12:16 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> >> [big flood-carved snip]
> On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
> > It's easy to know there is a global flood. It's documented in the
> > Bible.
>
> That is not true. The Bible has a story of a flood. A story is not
> > Bible.
>
> documentation. In fact, treating a story as documentation usually
> defeats the very purpose of the story. Insistence on a global flood
> because the Bible says so is an insult to the Bible, by both definitions
> of "insult".
>
> > All societies speak of it their cultures,
>
> That is not even close to true. Plenty of societies do not speak of
> > All societies speak of it their cultures,
>
> floods. Others speak only of local floods. What is as clear as day is
> that the vast majority of societies around the world do *not* speak of
> the flood that is told of in the Bible.
>
Worldwide with the same basic story.
> > ... which has to be an origin of the Bible account.
>
> Surely you have read the literature enough to know that the Bible
> account derives from an earlier Babylonian account, with a Sumerian
> account even older than that.
>
Proven the other way around.
> > The geology and fossils fit.
>
> that the geology and fossils did not fit, and they still do not fit.
>
> > Historic
> > Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> > people would have to change careers immediately.
>
> That's just insane. Rewriting the models would keep geologists busier
> > Historic
> > Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> > people would have to change careers immediately.
>
> than they could hope for.
>
Yes they would. They would be forced in cataclyism explanations if
millions of years weren't the time factors for their scenarios, and
then everything else would be put under a microscope as well.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:16:37 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 23, 2:47�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ovncd85gtal2tdtsvtr1noua21ddhck...@4ax.com>, jillery
> <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
> >.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
to be uprooted and thrust in with sediment, unhardened, and then
hardened quickly with the tree in it. That's just one of those
geological facts that didn't take so much time to form.
CJ
> In message <ovncd85gtal2tdtsvtr1noua21ddhck...@4ax.com>, jillery
> <69jpi...@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> ><curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In message
> >>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> ><curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> In message
> >>> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
> >>> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>
> >>> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
> >>> >entertaining.
>
> >>> >entertaining.
>
> >>> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
> >>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >>> --
> >>> alias Ernest Major
>
> >>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> >What's to work on? �Polystrate trees have been recognized and
> >understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
> >>> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
> >>> --
> >>> alias Ernest Major
>
> >>Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>
> >What's to work on? �Polystrate trees have been recognized and
> >understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>
> He might have intended to refer to polystrate trees, but what he wrote
> was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
> tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
> and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> was something else. A tree stuck between strata would be, for example, a
> tree washed down a river during a flood and stranded on a delta flat,
> and then covered by sediment from subsequent floods.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
> >be able to understand:
>
> ><http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete
> >be able to understand:
>
> >.html#!/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomplete.html>
>
> ><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
> >Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
> ><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
> >Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
> >are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
> >polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
> >Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
> >them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
> >suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
> >buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
> >faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
> ><http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>
> >Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>
> ><http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>
> >Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
> >are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
> >polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
> >Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
> >them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
> >suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
> >buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
> >faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>
> >This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
> >article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
> >Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
> >them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
> >strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
> >angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
> >article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
> >Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
> >them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
> >strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
> >angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>
> >The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>
> --
>
> alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it would be true of the polystrate as was written on. It had
> - Show quoted text -
to be uprooted and thrust in with sediment, unhardened, and then
hardened quickly with the tree in it. That's just one of those
geological facts that didn't take so much time to form.
CJ
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 2:18:41 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:14:23 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 23, 12:16ļæ½am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> >> [big flood-carved snip]
>> > It's easy to know there is a global flood. ļæ½It's documented in the
>> > Bible.
>>
>> That is not true. ļæ½The Bible has a story of a flood. ļæ½A story is not
>> documentation. ļæ½In fact, treating a story as documentation usually
>> defeats the very purpose of the story. ļæ½Insistence on a global flood
>> floods. ļæ½Others speak only of local floods. ļæ½What is as clear as day is
>> > ... which has to be an origin of the Bible account.
>>
>> Surely you have read the literature enough to know that the Bible
>> account derives from an earlier Babylonian account, with a Sumerian
>> account even older than that.
>>
>Proven the other way around.
Show us.
>> > The geology and fossils fit.
>>
>> You are playing make-believe again. ļæ½Bible-believers knew 200 years ago
to fit them.
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 23, 12:16ļæ½am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> >> [big flood-carved snip]
>> > Bible.
>>
>> That is not true. ļæ½The Bible has a story of a flood. ļæ½A story is not
>> documentation. ļæ½In fact, treating a story as documentation usually
>> defeats the very purpose of the story. ļæ½Insistence on a global flood
>> because the Bible says so is an insult to the Bible, by both definitions
>> of "insult".
>>
>> > All societies speak of it their cultures,
>>
>> That is not even close to true. ļæ½Plenty of societies do not speak of
>> of "insult".
>>
>> > All societies speak of it their cultures,
>>
>> floods. ļæ½Others speak only of local floods. ļæ½What is as clear as day is
>> that the vast majority of societies around the world do *not* speak of
>> the flood that is told of in the Bible.
>>
>Worldwide with the same basic story.
Not even close.
>> the flood that is told of in the Bible.
>>
>Worldwide with the same basic story.
>> > ... which has to be an origin of the Bible account.
>>
>> Surely you have read the literature enough to know that the Bible
>> account derives from an earlier Babylonian account, with a Sumerian
>> account even older than that.
>>
>Proven the other way around.
>> > The geology and fossils fit.
>>
>> that the geology and fossils did not fit, and they still do not fit.
>>
>> > Historic
>> > Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> > people would have to change careers immediately.
>>
>> That's just insane. ļæ½Rewriting the models would keep geologists busier
>>
>> > Historic
>> > Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
>> > people would have to change careers immediately.
>>
>> than they could hope for.
>>
>Yes they would. They would be forced in cataclyism explanations if
>millions of years weren't the time factors for their scenarios, and
>then everything else would be put under a microscope as well.
The evidence does not fit your doctrines. We cannot change the evidence
>>
>Yes they would. They would be forced in cataclyism explanations if
>millions of years weren't the time factors for their scenarios, and
>then everything else would be put under a microscope as well.
to fit them.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:21:45 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 23, 5:28�am, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:55271064-5cba-4ad8...@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> And five miles of water isn't going to do the trick. Do you see the oceanic
> seabeds crumble and fold under the pressure of water today?
>
> > ... It's
> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. �I think
> started this debate I had no idea that you know so very little about the
> topics.
>
It has nothing to do with me at all. It has to do with what causes
rock to bend. Of course earthquakes don't make it happen. You just
have to convince your fellow old age happening folk that.
> > > > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > > bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> > > You should've kept your legs
> > > crossed.http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
> know what causes rock to bend (and how and when they formed in the first
> place).
>
>
No they don't quite. The ones that are anti-flood must make a
different scenario up, and it's over-thrusting, which can't do what
miles of a hot flood water will do when laying down a layer, cement-
like and having it bend the only way it can for many miles.
>
> > > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of
> > > exclamation
> > > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to
> > > enlighten
> > > you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
> > for miles and miles, and never break? �...
>
> Of course layers break sometimes. Sometimes they don't. You really love your
> strawmen, don't you.
>
Rock only breaks when hardened. If it didn't break, there wasn't
enough force, or else it would have. I think you are laying in a
whole barnful, aren't you?
> > ... Why have we never seen it in
> > the present?
>
> We do see it! But continents move (which is what causes almost all
> earthquakes) very, very s l o w l y.
>
But it doesn't cause what floods cause do they?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz- Hide quoted text -
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:55271064-5cba-4ad8...@r14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> > > "curtjester1" �skrev i
> > > meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > > depostited. �...
>
> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken
> > > place
> > > under several miles of water, right?
>
> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> > > "curtjester1" �skrev i
> > > meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > (snip)
>
> > > > Are we on the same page? �The floodists are saying that these long
> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
> > > > depostited. �...
>
> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken
> > > place
> > > under several miles of water, right?
>
>
> And five miles of water isn't going to do the trick. Do you see the oceanic
> seabeds crumble and fold under the pressure of water today?
>
> > ... It's
> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. �I think
> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
> Earthquakes don't heat up existing rock and make it bend. When we first
> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>
> started this debate I had no idea that you know so very little about the
> topics.
>
It has nothing to do with me at all. It has to do with what causes
rock to bend. Of course earthquakes don't make it happen. You just
have to convince your fellow old age happening folk that.
> > > > ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
> > > > anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
> > > > bends, by overthrusting. �Are you going to say that overthrusting is
> > > > going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>
> > > You should've kept your legs
>
> > Really, why? �Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > limitiations. �Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> > 'latch on'?
>
> It's really difficult to make any sense of your words, but yes, geologists
> > Really, why? �Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
> > limitiations. �Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
> > 'latch on'?
>
> know what causes rock to bend (and how and when they formed in the first
> place).
>
>
No they don't quite. The ones that are anti-flood must make a
different scenario up, and it's over-thrusting, which can't do what
miles of a hot flood water will do when laying down a layer, cement-
like and having it bend the only way it can for many miles.
>
> > > Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of
> > > exclamation
> > > and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to
> > > enlighten
> > > you.
>
> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
>
> Of course layers break sometimes. Sometimes they don't. You really love your
> strawmen, don't you.
>
Rock only breaks when hardened. If it didn't break, there wasn't
enough force, or else it would have. I think you are laying in a
whole barnful, aren't you?
> > ... Why have we never seen it in
> > the present?
>
> We do see it! But continents move (which is what causes almost all
> earthquakes) very, very s l o w l y.
>
But it doesn't cause what floods cause do they?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz- Hide quoted text -
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:29:41 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 23, 7:00�am, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:c7d00ed1-a612-4cee...@u13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > I think you're at least open minded. ...
>
> Are you joking? Scientists have spend the last few hundred years being open
> minded enough to reject ancient biblical dogmas. Take the Theory of
> Evolution, plate tectonics, expanding Universe, 4,6 billion years old Earth,
> Big Bang etc. How open minded can you get? Now you want them to return to
> the closemindedness that only religion can create, and you have the nerve to
> call it being "open minded".
>
It's not open-minded when you have been shown proof of flood evidence
that all geologists agree that there is flood evidences, and can't put
it beyond a local flood. Uniformitarians also don't go understand the
universe is under the law of thermodynamics and is 'wearing out'. Of
course they can't see a Creator creating, because it flies against
that theory, so they invent a Creator-like law of expansion. I am
sure you won't read the radioactive decay links I posted either.
> > ... If you think it can be sudden,
>
> Because the evidence shows that millions of years passed between some
> events. Not all, but some. And by evidence I mean hard, cold data, gathered
> and examined over years, studied, analysed and tested by both opponents and
> proponents of the various theories.
>
Oh pick and choose. One takes a day or two when shown to you, and
then you jump back on the forever horse.
> > ... It just isn't necessary and if
> > the geological column fits in the flood model. �...
>
> It has been said, yes, but it's a lie. I know it's difficult for you to
> realize, but there are people out there, who are working hard to keep people
> like you ignorant and fill your head with untruths.
>
It's not a lie as the fossil record would show tweeners of things
assumped evolved. Sometimes it shows the opposite, things bigger and
better in the past than now.
> Here's the deal: The fossil record shows, beyond any doubt, that the
> biblical flood did not happen.
>
Here's the deal, no it didn't. See how easy that was?
> > ... You just have to read
> brought has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately you lack both the
> education and the openmindedness to realize it.
>
And these people have much more geological education and experience
than you. What's wrong with that picture?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz
> "curtjester1" �skrev i meddelelsennews:c7d00ed1-a612-4cee...@u13g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > I think you're at least open minded. ...
>
> Are you joking? Scientists have spend the last few hundred years being open
> minded enough to reject ancient biblical dogmas. Take the Theory of
> Evolution, plate tectonics, expanding Universe, 4,6 billion years old Earth,
> Big Bang etc. How open minded can you get? Now you want them to return to
> the closemindedness that only religion can create, and you have the nerve to
> call it being "open minded".
>
It's not open-minded when you have been shown proof of flood evidence
that all geologists agree that there is flood evidences, and can't put
it beyond a local flood. Uniformitarians also don't go understand the
universe is under the law of thermodynamics and is 'wearing out'. Of
course they can't see a Creator creating, because it flies against
that theory, so they invent a Creator-like law of expansion. I am
sure you won't read the radioactive decay links I posted either.
> > ... If you think it can be sudden,
> > then why all the need for millions of years between 'event happenings'
> > on the earth to make some sediment? �...
>
> Because the evidence shows that millions of years passed between some
> events. Not all, but some. And by evidence I mean hard, cold data, gathered
> and examined over years, studied, analysed and tested by both opponents and
> proponents of the various theories.
>
Oh pick and choose. One takes a day or two when shown to you, and
then you jump back on the forever horse.
> > ... It just isn't necessary and if
> > happened over such a time period why wouldn't it be much more than is
> > shown today? �Like I said, the fossil record has been said to show why
> > the geological column fits in the flood model. �...
>
> It has been said, yes, but it's a lie. I know it's difficult for you to
> realize, but there are people out there, who are working hard to keep people
> like you ignorant and fill your head with untruths.
>
It's not a lie as the fossil record would show tweeners of things
assumped evolved. Sometimes it shows the opposite, things bigger and
better in the past than now.
> Here's the deal: The fossil record shows, beyond any doubt, that the
> biblical flood did not happen.
>
Here's the deal, no it didn't. See how easy that was?
> > ... You just have to read
> > up on it, or comment why you don't think it to be so.
>
> Did you read any of the comments in this thread? Each and every argument you
>
> brought has been thoroughly debunked, but unfortunately you lack both the
> education and the openmindedness to realize it.
>
And these people have much more geological education and experience
than you. What's wrong with that picture?
CJ
> --
> Malte Runz
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:35:31 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 23, 10:11�am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:55:31 -0800, in article
> <yMSdnf3ZrvHOsUvN4p2d...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
> >> It's easy to know there is a global flood. �It's documented in the
> >> Bible.
>
> orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
> science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
> note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
> Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
> people from Australia and South America.
>
"world-wide" famine???
> On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
> Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
> accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
>
Only you.
>
> >> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
>
>
Depending on the extensiveness and documentation, a lot, worldwide.
>
> >> The geology and fossils fit.
>
> fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
> to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
> years?
>
>
Don't understand that one, but it sounds interesting.
>
> >> �Historic
> to wonder about the influence of job security on what preachers say?
>
It's foretold that they're on shaking ground.
CJ
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:55:31 -0800, in article
> <yMSdnf3ZrvHOsUvN4p2d...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>
>
> >On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> [...snip...]
>
>
> >On 12/22/12 11:48 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
> >> It's easy to know there is a global flood. �It's documented in the
> >> Bible.
>
> >You would first have to show that the bible is accurate.
>
> On the one hand, the Bible also documents that the Sun makes a daily
>
> orbit of the fixed Earth. Yet many people have taken account of modern
> science to modify their approach to that documentation. One might also
> note that the Bible documents a world-wide famine (in the story of
> Joseph in Egypt), yet I wonder how many people insist that Egypt fed
> people from Australia and South America.
>
"world-wide" famine???
> On the other hand, many people perceive internal conflicts in the
> Biblical documentation of the Flood as calling into question its
> accuracy. Such as the number of "clean" animals.
>
>
Only you.
>
> >> All societies speak of it their cultures, which has to be an
> >> origin of the Bible account.
>
>
> >That sentence was opaque. Not all societies speak of it, and they don't
> >have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>
> In particular, now many societies speak of a *world-wide* flood?
> >have to have their origins in a single account or single event.
>
>
>
Depending on the extensiveness and documentation, a lot, worldwide.
>
> >> The geology and fossils fit.
>
> >In fact they don't, which we could discuss if you could ever be brought
> >to argue specifics.
>
> For example, the complex specified structure of the ordering of the
> >to argue specifics.
>
> fossils - how does that fit with (the creationist interpretation of)
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Was that order purposefully designed
> to give the appearance of major changes to life over many millions of
> years?
>
>
Don't understand that one, but it sounds interesting.
>
> >> �Historic
> >> Geology has to discount it because if their model was wrong, so many
> >> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
> >> people would have to change careers immediately.
>
> >Ah, the conspiracy theory. Very paranoid of you.
>
> As long as the issue of conspiracy has been raised, is one permitted
>
> to wonder about the influence of job security on what preachers say?
>
It's foretold that they're on shaking ground.
CJ
> --
> ---Tom S.
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:36:39 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 1:06�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:47:19 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:47:19 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
In a sense they do make science a parody at times.
> - Show quoted text -
CJ
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:37:06 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 1:08�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:53:35 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:53:35 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
You need to come up with better schtick.
> - Show quoted text -
CJ
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:39:43 PM12/30/12
to
> >> So, is the Permian post-flood?
>
> > Just read em. The floodists are quite nice in detailing what period
> > you (mainstream geologists assign) and think vs. their depositions
> > scenarios.
>
> A yes or no would have sufficed. But you cite just one group of
> creationists. There are many, and they contradict each other.
>
>
for your sake is the one to go to.
>
>
>
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> am really trying to defend their side rather than making a definitive
> >>>>> position for myself. I already believe in a global flood, just on the
> >>>>> claims of the Bible..if you'd been following.
>
> >>>> In other words, you have no empirical basis for anything you say, and
> >>>> merely hold that opinion because it suits you to do so. You occasionally
> >>>> quote random bits from creationist web sites, but can't and won't
> >>>> discuss them. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
>
> >>> I think the people are very empirical in their scenarios and in their
> >>> unfolding improper geological thinking and assumptions. If you would
> >>> actually read a book you would at least know that, instead of trying
> >>> the ad hominem dodge.
>
> >> I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
> >> impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
> >> that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
> >> arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
> >> haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
> >> arguments.
>
> > You don't need to talk about me. I just reiterate what I read. It's
> > kinda like playing devil's advocate.
>
> Not true. A devil's advocate makes arguments of his own and is willing
>
I already believe in a flood no matter what a floodist would say or an
atheist geologist would say. Hope that helps.
CJ
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:42:33 PM12/30/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
To vex you into asking redundant questions such as this one. No, to
> - Show quoted text -
merely just show that the Bible comments on this time of the end
before good government takes over and uses Noah as an example. IOW to
get people to have some Bible interest, and not to put so much
interest in man who generally has ulterior motives and can't help you
live as God intended, forever on his created earth.
CJ
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:44:14 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 1:26锟絧m, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:22:10 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:22:10 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> >> physicians?
>
> >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >To some degree yes. 锟絀 think money is a great motivator for doctors to
>
> >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >perform surgeries and prescribe medicines. 锟絀t's basically true of
> >just about any field, even religion. 锟絀 think you have geologists who
> >are much more sophisticated than you or anyone here saying that the
> >flood happened. 锟絊o it doesn't go as far as the issue itself. 锟絀 have
> >just read a book about how ancient man was taken for granted and how
> >much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
> >areas. 锟絋o the student of today, that is like heresy because they have
> >much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
> >been taught they are the creme de la creme of knowledge and thinking.
> >Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
> >them many a time.
>
> Accusing scientists of fraud is easy to do, but you need to back it up
> with actual evidence on your part. I will not hold my breath waiting for
> you to start to learn science, however.- Hide quoted text -
> >Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
> >them many a time.
>
> Accusing scientists of fraud is easy to do, but you need to back it up
> with actual evidence on your part. I will not hold my breath waiting for
>
> - Show quoted text -
Piltdown man was a science fraud. Well with all this fossil talk they
> - Show quoted text -
should have found millions of fossils between a chimp and man. Ooops.
CJ
wgroom
Dec 30, 2012, 2:44:45 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 1:45�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:39:43 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:39:43 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually they used to. Get up to speed.
> - Show quoted text -
CJ
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 2:50:41 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:36:39 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
Your ignorance of science is noted and your opinion must be dismissed
because of it.
because of it.
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 2:52:14 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:45 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote in talk.origins:
>On Dec 30, 1:45�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:39:43 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 22, 10:12�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >> On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > > (snip)
>>
>> >> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> >> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> >> > > > depostited. ...
>>
>> >> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> >> > > under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> >> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
>> >> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
>> >> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> >> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>> >> Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
>> >> slowly?
>>
>> >Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
>>
>> No such thing exists. No geologists accept the claim that Noah's Flood
>> happened.
>
>On Dec 30, 1:45�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:39:43 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 22, 10:12�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >> On 22 Dec, 11:58, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > > (snip)
>>
>> >> > > > Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> >> > > > stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> >> > > > depostited. ...
>>
>> >> > > I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> >> > > under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> >> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend. It's
>> >> > going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron. I think
>> >> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> >> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>> >> Are you aware that the continents are moving, and are moving very
>> >> slowly?
>>
>> >Yes, and all the floodist geologists agree.
>>
>> No such thing exists. No geologists accept the claim that Noah's Flood
>> happened.
>
>Actually they used to. Get up to speed.
I used the present tense. You ran away from the problem you have.
Free Lunch
Dec 30, 2012, 2:51:25 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:14 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
A fraud discovered by scientists, not by theists. You guess about what
should have been discovered is a guess based on ignorance.
should have been discovered is a guess based on ignorance.
TomS
Dec 30, 2012, 2:52:38 PM12/30/12
to
"On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:55:10 -0800, in article <kb62rf$n6i$1...@dont-email.me>,
Mark Isaak stated..."
First of all, they had to be taken two-by-two, the male ant and his
mate. That is one male ant and one queen, no workers, for each kind.
Then, when the Ark landed, the anteater had one meal, and how many
kinds of ants became extinct?
(Of course, there are several kinds of anteaters, and two of each kind
eating means a mass extinction in the ant kinds.)
--
---Tom S.
Mark Isaak stated..."
>
>On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> [...]
>> Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
>> defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>>
>> I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
>> on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>
>Ever kept silkworms? They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
>kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
>four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
>just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
>bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
>thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
>we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
>soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>
And then consider the various "kinds" of ants.
>On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> [...]
>> Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
>> defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>>
>> I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
>> on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>
>Ever kept silkworms? They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
>kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
>four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
>just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
>bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
>thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
>we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
>soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>
First of all, they had to be taken two-by-two, the male ant and his
mate. That is one male ant and one queen, no workers, for each kind.
Then, when the Ark landed, the anteater had one meal, and how many
kinds of ants became extinct?
(Of course, there are several kinds of anteaters, and two of each kind
eating means a mass extinction in the ant kinds.)
--
---Tom S.
Boikat
Dec 30, 2012, 3:38:18 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 11:47�am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 4:16�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 1:31 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 12:44 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 11:28 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:00:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> > > > > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> > > > > > >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> > > > > > >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> > > > > > >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> > > > > > >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> > > > > > >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> On Dec 22, 4:16�pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 1:31 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 20, 12:44 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 20, 11:28 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 19, 3:46 pm, Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:00:31 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>
> > > > > > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Dec 17, 7:09 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > >> The IRC is not a reliable source for reliable information or
> > > > > > >> explainations, especially since they reject any expalaination that
> > > > > > >> does not conflorm to their a-priori conclusions. Their "researchers"
> > > > > > >> even have to sign an oath to the effect that if any conclusions based
> > > > > > >> upon the evidence does not support their a-priori conclusions, thyen
> > > > > > >> it must be rejected. They instatutionalize intellectual dishonesty.
>
> > > > > > >> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > >Here's one from CRC, then. The polystrate fossil lycopod (giant reed
> > > > > > >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> > > > > > >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> > > > > > >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> > > > > > >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> > > > > > >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> > > > > > >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> > > > > > >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> > > > > > So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> > > > > > equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> > > > > > e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
> > > > > > know that deposition has been slower.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > I'm not sure that would satsify many, as even floodists opine on many
> > > > > potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
>
> > > > They "opine" without doing any actual research.
>
> > > The opiners are ones who have spent years and years in the geology
> > > field.
>
> > Names?
>
> > > It's quite fun to read of the uniformitarians who make
> > > damaging flood comments, and who have made claims for themselves that
> > > floodists made years prior.
>
> > Citations?
>
>
> > > > > > >-- size of tree) was first photographed in 1975 by National
> > > > > > >Geographic. (One of our contributors, however supplied this
> > > > > > >photograph.) It was buried vertically in the rock, cutting through
> > > > > > >about ten feet of strata, and is located in Tennessee. Polystrate
> > > > > > >plants are common and reveal that the layers of sediments were
> > > > > > >deposited quickly-as in a flood- not spanning millions of years.
> > > > > > >Plants and trees rot long before millions of years.
>
> > > > > > So deposition was rapid there; there is no reason to necessarily
> > > > > > equate ten feet of strata with millions of years. In other places,
> > > > > > e.g., where paleosols have developed or bioturbation is extensive, we
> > > > > > know that deposition has been slower.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > I'm not sure that would satsify many, as even floodists opine on many
> > > > > potential scenarios for slower depositions around the flood.
>
> > > > They "opine" without doing any actual research.
>
> > > The opiners are ones who have spent years and years in the geology
> > > field.
>
> > Names?
>
> > > It's quite fun to read of the uniformitarians who make
> > > damaging flood comments, and who have made claims for themselves that
> > > floodists made years prior.
>
> > Citations?
>
>
> The Genesis Flood with Whitcomb and Morris is full of them. �I don't
> have home computer access.
Witcomb and Morris' claims have been refuted long ago.
> have home computer access.
Boikat
Boikat
Dec 30, 2012, 3:46:47 PM12/30/12
to
On Dec 30, 12:22�pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > fiction, when it comes to geology? �Do you feel the same way about
> > physicians?
>
> To some degree yes. �I think money is a great motivator for doctors to
> perform surgeries and prescribe medicines. �It's basically true of
> just about any field, even religion. �I think you have geologists who
of a world wide flood a few thousnd years ago are "sophisticated', or
even real geologists? Care to name names?
>�So it doesn't go as far as the issue itself. �I have
> Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
> them many a time.
Like you?
But the point I made still stands. Since you've demonstrated pure
ignorance of physical geological processes, how do you know your
creationist "geologists" are telling the truth, and not just
distorting the evidence to support their a-priori conclusions?
Boikat
> > physicians?
>
> To some degree yes. �I think money is a great motivator for doctors to
> perform surgeries and prescribe medicines. �It's basically true of
> just about any field, even religion. �I think you have geologists who
> are much more sophisticated than you or anyone here saying that the
> flood happened.
How do you know those "geologists" that are claiming there is evidence
> flood happened.
of a world wide flood a few thousnd years ago are "sophisticated', or
even real geologists? Care to name names?
>�So it doesn't go as far as the issue itself. �I have
> just read a book about how ancient man was taken for granted and how
> much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
> areas. �To the student of today, that is like heresy because they have
> much more creative they were than out modern counterparts in many
> been taught they are the creme de la creme of knowledge and thinking.
Title of the book?
> Tis why people won't be objective when they have issues in front of
> them many a time.
But the point I made still stands. Since you've demonstrated pure
ignorance of physical geological processes, how do you know your
creationist "geologists" are telling the truth, and not just
distorting the evidence to support their a-priori conclusions?
Boikat
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 5:28:14 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:43:58 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <83043e3d-e283-419c-8e8e-22ad3aea0...@u16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> writes
>> mainstream geology.
>>
>Why? If you have a tree stuck in layers of strata, you have a very
>quick deposition. Mainstream geology teaches layers were formed
>generally in the long term. They would have you believe say, that all
>the sand in a layer of the GC was just blown there, or they would have
>you believe the stratas with marine fossils in them would be in the
>form of some 'age floodings'.
I hope you understand that 'generally' means 'not always', and so
breaks your logic.
And what does 'age floodings' mean?
>
>CJ
>
>> Are you -
>>
>> Still working on that beds of chalk several kilometers thick scenario?
>> Still working on that faunal succession scenario?
>> Still working on that aeolian sandstone scenario?
>> Still working on that evaporite deposits scenario?
>> Still working on that fossil coral reefs scenario?
>> Still working on that tillite scenario?
>> Still working on that coal measure (multiple coal seams) scenario?
>> Still working on that banded iron formation scenario?
>> Still working on that iridium layer scenario?
>> Still working on that flood basalt scenario?
>> Still working on that ophiolite scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <83043e3d-e283-419c-8e8e-22ad3aea0...@u16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>> curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>
>> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>
>> >> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
>> >> >entertaining.
>>
>> >> >entertaining.
>>
>> >> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>> A "tree stuck between strata" is something that is expected by
>> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>> mainstream geology.
>>
>Why? If you have a tree stuck in layers of strata, you have a very
>quick deposition. Mainstream geology teaches layers were formed
>generally in the long term. They would have you believe say, that all
>the sand in a layer of the GC was just blown there, or they would have
>you believe the stratas with marine fossils in them would be in the
>form of some 'age floodings'.
I hope you understand that 'generally' means 'not always', and so
breaks your logic.
And what does 'age floodings' mean?
>
>CJ
>
>> Are you -
>>
>> Still working on that beds of chalk several kilometers thick scenario?
>> Still working on that faunal succession scenario?
>> Still working on that aeolian sandstone scenario?
>> Still working on that evaporite deposits scenario?
>> Still working on that fossil coral reefs scenario?
>> Still working on that tillite scenario?
>> Still working on that coal measure (multiple coal seams) scenario?
>> Still working on that banded iron formation scenario?
>> Still working on that iridium layer scenario?
>> Still working on that flood basalt scenario?
>> Still working on that ophiolite scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> >CJ
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 5:32:06 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 09:51:36 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 4:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
>> impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
>> that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
>> arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
>> haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
>> arguments.- Hide quoted text -
You're not helping.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 4:49 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not even talking about "the people". I'm talking about you. And it's
>> impossible to do an ad hominem argument with you, since that requires
>> that you first make some claim, which I then would attempt to refute by
>> arguing that you're an idiot, therefore anything you say is wrong. You
>> haven't made any real claims, and I haven't attempted any ad hominem
>>
>You don't need to talk about me. I just reiterate what I read. It's
>kinda like playing devil's advocate.
>
>CJ
>You don't need to talk about me. I just reiterate what I read. It's
>kinda like playing devil's advocate.
>
You're not helping.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 5:35:33 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:04:52 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>> true that most geologists support a Biblical Flood. In fact, most
>> geologists reject a Biblical Flood as a historical truth.
>
>Well, that's why were here, to show that the old geology should become
>newer. It used to be that the old geology were the floodists, and
>people like Lydell and company changed all that.
Then you agree that your previous statement is invalid, and that it's
you who is the outlier looking in.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:35 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:06:40 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> >> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>> >> > [...]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 21, 1:35 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> >> On 12/21/12 4:32 AM, Ron O wrote:
>>
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was
>> >> > more entertaining.
>>
>> >> > more entertaining.
>>
>> >> There are plenty of people who sincerely believe the same stuff
>> >> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
>> >> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
>> >> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
>> >> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
>> >> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
>> >> world.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>>
>> >And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
>> >that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
>> >generated by one man who had a disdain for religion, and as most
>> >students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
>> >on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
>> >anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
>> >their bended-layered egos.
>>
>> In order for your statement to be at all valid, it would have to be
>> >> curtjester is regurgitating, so I see no reason to suspect that he is a
>> >> loki. Based on his knowledge of both composition and science, my
>> >> suspicion is that he is in grade school, and that he lives in a
>> >> community that tells him not to think for himself and feeds him his
>> >> pseudo-Christian garbage as if it were the most important thing in the
>> >> world.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>>
>> >And I think most of my responders are student or student wannabees
>> >that are easily sucked into the historic geological assumption
>> >generated by one man who had a disdain for religion, and as most
>> >students who take a class think themselves better thinkers than anyone
>> >on 'the outside', and are too into their conceitedness to look at
>> >anything objectively, and will look for fellow adhominists to support
>> >their bended-layered egos.
>>
>> true that most geologists support a Biblical Flood. In fact, most
>> geologists reject a Biblical Flood as a historical truth.
>
>Well, that's why were here, to show that the old geology should become
>newer. It used to be that the old geology were the floodists, and
>people like Lydell and company changed all that.
Then you agree that your previous statement is invalid, and that it's
you who is the outlier looking in.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 5:54:48 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:17:05 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:36�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>>
>What I see is that geology 'has' to say that its true and can't deny
>it.
What is 'it"? And why should geologists deny "it"?
> As for the explanation, it seems they say, sudden for strata, and
>not for others. Well, if sudden enters the equation in any numerous
>sightings, what is that going to say about all these millions of years
>for strata making? Seems like if its that easy to make strata
>quickly, it might not be so necessary to make it over a long period,
>eh? And some of these long term deals get to be quite hard to imagine
>if one is going to blow sand to a very specific spot when we know that
>sand blows all sorts of directions with the wind it experiences each
>moment, eh?
You're comparing strata measured in feet to strata measured in miles.
That makes no sense.
>> <http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>>
>> Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>>
>> <http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>>
>> Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>> are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
>> polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>> Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
>> them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
>> suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>> buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>> faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>>
>Hmm, buried forests. Non-catastrophic. Is that to say that can't
>ever be buried catastrophically? I do have a buried forest in one of
>these pages. Do tell.
No. It says that catastrophic burial is different from
non-catastrophic burial, as I show below. Please read the whole post
before you comment.
>> This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>> article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>> Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
>> them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
>> strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>> angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>>
>Explanations are many and when you see that your's has differing
>potentials within their own camps, it becomes less forceful. That is
>never brought up, it seems. And Mt. St. Helens is used by floodists,
>and not all acts of nature are due to a flood. So......
>Your using one tiny example. And you are seeminly trying to say, that
>trees going through strata not caused by a volcanic eruption is a
>proof of some kind. Please expound.
It's your example. Support it or shut up.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 8:36�pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:02:46 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>
>> <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 21, 12:17 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <98c8f254-a37e-4679-ae75-b075fa92a...@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Ron
>> >> O <rokim...@cox.net> writes
>>
>> >> >Do you think that curtjester is just a loki or for real? KSJJ was more
>> >> >entertaining.
>>
>> >> >entertaining.
>>
>> >> The use of the C(o)urt Jester nym, and the studied failure to provide a
>> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>> >> coherent argument, do suggest trollhood.
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Still working on that tree being stuck between strata scenario?
>>
>> What's to work on? �Polystrate trees have been recognized and
>> understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>>
>> understood at least since the work of John Dawson in 1868.
>>
>> But just for fun, here's a layman's explanation that even you should
>> be able to understand:
>>
>> <http://distraffscience.blogspot.com/2012/03/polystrate-trees-incomple...>
>> be able to understand:
>>
>>
>What I see is that geology 'has' to say that its true and can't deny
>it.
What is 'it"? And why should geologists deny "it"?
> As for the explanation, it seems they say, sudden for strata, and
>not for others. Well, if sudden enters the equation in any numerous
>sightings, what is that going to say about all these millions of years
>for strata making? Seems like if its that easy to make strata
>quickly, it might not be so necessary to make it over a long period,
>eh? And some of these long term deals get to be quite hard to imagine
>if one is going to blow sand to a very specific spot when we know that
>sand blows all sorts of directions with the wind it experiences each
>moment, eh?
You're comparing strata measured in feet to strata measured in miles.
That makes no sense.
>> <http://tinyurl.com/bpka3xu>
>>
>> Let's compare that with the specific example in your cite:
>>
>> <http://www.icr.org/article/4950/>
>>
>> Look at the first photo. �There is more than one polystrate tree. They
>> are all standing. �The article admits the area has "numerous"
>> polystrate trees. �Their roots are embedded in a common coal seam.
>> Their trunks are surrounded by layers of carbon-rich shale. �Compare
>> them to the photos of present-day swamps from my cite. �All this
>> suggests the ICR site was once a standing coastal forest that was
>> buried non-catastrophically as described in my cite, and certainly
>> faster than the millions of years the ICR says science insists on.
>>
>ever be buried catastrophically? I do have a buried forest in one of
>these pages. Do tell.
No. It says that catastrophic burial is different from
non-catastrophic burial, as I show below. Please read the whole post
before you comment.
>> This is very different from the explanation proposed by the ICR
>> article, that of a cataclysmic volcanic explosion similar to Mt. St.
>> Helens. �Look at the photos again from the ICR article. �Now compare
>> them to the photos from Mt. St. Helens from my cite. �The polystrate
>> strata have no volcanic ash. �There are no uprooted trees lying at odd
>> angles. �There is no evidence of a cataclysmic burial here.
>>
>potentials within their own camps, it becomes less forceful. That is
>never brought up, it seems. And Mt. St. Helens is used by floodists,
>and not all acts of nature are due to a flood. So......
>
>> The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
Exactly so.....
>> The Global Flood argument just doesn't hold water.
>Your using one tiny example. And you are seeminly trying to say, that
>trees going through strata not caused by a volcanic eruption is a
>proof of some kind. Please expound.
It's your example. Support it or shut up.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 6:02:19 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:56:37 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 11:25 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...]
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 11:25 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:39 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> I would be astounded if I have not read more books promoting flood
>> geology than than you have. Unlike you, though, I have also read books
>> about actual floods and actual geology, and I have looked at the real thing.
>>
>It would be nice if you were capable of showing that in good sentence
>logic and structure. You haven't.
Dammit.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 6:00:01 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:43:22 -0800 (PST), curtjester1
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 10:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> You have been told of it already, repeatedly.
>> putting rocks and dirt on top of things? On the earth, that happens a
>> lot. In fact, it is impossible for that sort of weight-generated
>> pressure *not* to be happening underground. And, as a bonus, it's hot
>> down there, too.
>> > the present?
>>
>> Rock can bend when it's under lots and lots of pressure. We *have* seen
>> it done in machines that can generate that much pressure. We do not see
>> it happening today because few people go sightseeing a mile or more
>> underground.
>>
>Try it wihout using a volcanic eruption. Bending without breaking is
>the real issue. One would need 'rock' in a soft state. Once its
>hard, its hard to imagine that it can be reheated and rearranged with
>a great force of nature without bending for say 250 miles.
So you admit the problem here is not with modern geology but your lack
of imagination. A mechanism without volcanic eruption has been
pointed out to you. You were told to understand it. Apparently you
didn't even bother to read it.
<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 22, 10:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 11:58 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>> >> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> (snip)
>>
>> >>> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> >>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> >>> depostited. ...
>>
>> >> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> >> under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
>>
>> That something is called "the earth." Specifically, plate tectonics.
>>
>> > On Dec 20, 7:40 pm, "Malte Runz" <malte_r...@forgititl.dk> wrote:
>> >> "curtjester1" skrev i meddelelsennews:d694992e-6962-4959...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> (snip)
>>
>> >>> Are we on the same page? The floodists are saying that these long
>> >>> stratas that are rock came and bending by heat as they were
>> >>> depostited. ...
>>
>> >> I'm sure they do since it's utter nonsense. And supposed to have taken place
>> >> under several miles of water, right?
>>
>> > You would need something to create miles of rock laying to bend.
>>
>> You have been told of it already, repeatedly.
>>
>> > It's going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron.
>>
>> More pressure than heat. Did you know you can generate pressure by
>> > It's going to take a lot of heat and sediment in one cauldron.
>>
>> putting rocks and dirt on top of things? On the earth, that happens a
>> lot. In fact, it is impossible for that sort of weight-generated
>> pressure *not* to be happening underground. And, as a bonus, it's hot
>> down there, too.
>>
>> > I think
>> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>> Plate tectonics. Go away and don't come back until you grok it.
>> > I think
>> > that's more than what can't be shown as true, an earthquake causing
>> > already existing rock to heat up and bend, is it?
>>
>>
>> >>> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
>> >>> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
>> >>> bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
>> >>> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>>
>> >> You should've kept your legs crossed.
>> >>http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>>
>> > Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
>> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
>> > limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
>> > 'latch on'?
>>
>> >>> ... The uniformitarians cling to a fact that some earth
>> >>> anomolies like an earth quake is going to make these rock strata
>> >>> bends, by overthrusting. Are you going to say that overthrusting is
>> >>> going to cause wavy bends for 150 miles?!!!!
>>
>> >> You should've kept your legs crossed.
>> >>http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2001/P-111.pdf
>>
>> > Really, why? Even the geologists who know what causes bending via
>> > their scenarios know of over-thrusting, and speak of it's
>> > limitiations. Why don't you speak of your 'holy grail' so we can
>> > 'latch on'?
>>
>> >> Feel free to ask questions (but none followed by a handful of exclamation
>> >> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
>> >> you.
>>
>> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
>> > for miles and miles, and never break? Why have we never seen it in
>> >> and question marks, please). I'm sure many here would be happy to enlighten
>> >> you.
>>
>> > How do you get anything so dramatic as huge layers of strata to bend
>> > the present?
>>
>> Rock can bend when it's under lots and lots of pressure. We *have* seen
>> it done in machines that can generate that much pressure. We do not see
>> it happening today because few people go sightseeing a mile or more
>> underground.
>>
>Try it wihout using a volcanic eruption. Bending without breaking is
>the real issue. One would need 'rock' in a soft state. Once its
>hard, its hard to imagine that it can be reheated and rearranged with
>a great force of nature without bending for say 250 miles.
So you admit the problem here is not with modern geology but your lack
of imagination. A mechanism without volcanic eruption has been
pointed out to you. You were told to understand it. Apparently you
didn't even bother to read it.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 6:03:06 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:11:59 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 11:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
>> > defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>>
>> > I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
>> > on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>>
>> Ever kept silkworms? They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
>> kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
>> four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
>> just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
>> bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
>> thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
>> we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
>> soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>>
>Maybe silkworms weren't silk worms yet. Maybe the dog chased the cat
>who ate the canary.....
>
>Maybe Noah had Mulberry trees, after all he made a vineyard when he
>left the Ark.
Maybe frogs had wings.
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 11:55 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/22/12 12:01 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > Do you really think you have been scientific to think you have
>> > defeated insects living through a flood? Ouch!
>>
>> > I thinketh they could have lived in the Ark, on the Ark, on any debris
>> > on the water, flown to higher grounds...etc, etc.
>>
>> Ever kept silkworms? They need to eat fresh mulberry leaves; no other
>> kind of leaf will do, and you have to pick them fresh every three or
>> four days. So the ark had to have a mulberry tree on it. And that's
>> just one insect. Other insects need a living giant sequoia. Might be a
>> bit of a trick getting that on the ark. The same goes for several
>> thousand other trees, shrubs, and herbs required by other insects. And
>> we haven't even got to the insects that require cold caves, or certain
>> soils, or the beds of freshwater streams. . . .
>>
>Maybe silkworms weren't silk worms yet. Maybe the dog chased the cat
>who ate the canary.....
>
>Maybe Noah had Mulberry trees, after all he made a vineyard when he
>left the Ark.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 6:06:30 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:42:33 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 1:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/30/12 9:53 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
[...]
>> What is your purpose in all these hundreds of posts?
>
foolish you are.
wrote:
>On Dec 30, 1:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 12/30/12 9:53 AM, curtjester1 wrote:
>> What is your purpose in all these hundreds of posts?
>
>To vex you into asking redundant questions such as this one. No, to
>merely just show that the Bible comments on this time of the end
>before good government takes over and uses Noah as an example. IOW to
>get people to have some Bible interest, and not to put so much
>interest in man who generally has ulterior motives and can't help you
>live as God intended, forever on his created earth.
You're not succeeding. All that you have done so far is show how
>merely just show that the Bible comments on this time of the end
>before good government takes over and uses Noah as an example. IOW to
>get people to have some Bible interest, and not to put so much
>interest in man who generally has ulterior motives and can't help you
>live as God intended, forever on his created earth.
foolish you are.
jillery
Dec 30, 2012, 6:07:40 PM12/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:45 -0800 (PST), wgroom <wgr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>Actually they used to. Get up to speed.
So you admit they don't anymore. Get up to speed.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages