Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 40 (23984)
11-23-2002 9:35 PM


For those who care to comment on Buddika or My content, please post them in here, this would be appreciated. Thanks
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 1:47 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 3 by John, posted 11-30-2002 1:50 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 11 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:25 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 17 by edge, posted 12-07-2002 7:29 PM TrueCreation has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 2 of 40 (25055)
11-30-2002 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
TC: "The soil itself is 1470 Billion years old, however, no sedimentary deposits began to accumulate above it for 1Ga and so this supports a Cambrian/pre-cambrian beginning for flood deposits."
Rubbish. There is no way to tell if the soil is of that age. According to TC himself, the soil on this site could have been washed away two days earlier and then redeveloped by the dawn of the Cambrian. All we can really say is that the development of this soil was interrupted by the superdeposition of the Lamotte Sand. Just as Buddika will find, TC cannot comprehend this simple fact and will repeat his misunderstanding indefinitely.
quote:
Buddika: Great argument. Now all you have to do is explain how this supports your case for a flood just 4-5,000 years ago.
Heh, heh, heh....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 9:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 11-30-2002 9:49 PM edge has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 40 (25057)
11-30-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Budikka:
Indeed, your entire vapor canopy argument (whatever it is), is meaningless if you are culling all your water from melted ice caps as you appear to be doing in the present argument.
I've been thinking about this ice cap issue, and wish to propose a solution.
Lets assume, first, that the ice caps pre-flood contained enough water to cover the earth. God, obviously, would have created them adequately for His purposes. Now, with not much thought it is apparent that these ice caps would have been enormous. Large enough, in fact, to deform the planet into something of a pancake shape. Here, we see evidence in scripture that such was the case. The world is, after all, described as something of a disk. We do have the problem however, that this scenario puts mesopotamia on the edge of the pancake so to speak. This, I believe, can be rectified with scripture by noting that the earth is also described as a circle-- obviously a reference to the extreme curvature of the earth in the regions of mesopotamia. At the appropriate moment, God caused millions of meteors to impact the earth, melting the ice sheets. Most hit the sheets directly but a few hit other regions, for what divine purpose it is not known. He also choose to mark the moon with craters as a testament to these great events. These massive ice caps melted catastrophically and the waters flowed over the earth. Such an event would so radically shift the gravitation center of the earth and weight distribution that the planet would flex into its now nearly global shape. However, before settling into a permanent state one would expect it to churn and wiggle like a water drop in zero-G. This intense geological activity is the source of our extant mountain ranges. Also note that this occilation would have been intense enough to through much of the water, once held in the ice caps, right off the planet. This flung-off water, perhaps being captured by Jupiter, thereby forming the moon of Europa. A further problem is also solved. This ejected water would carry away most of the heat generted by the meteor impacts.
I believe this to be an acceptable solution. Thank you all for joining me here today.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 9:35 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 2:08 PM John has replied
 Message 7 by Randy, posted 11-30-2002 7:46 PM John has replied
 Message 40 by logicalunatic, posted 12-20-2002 1:40 PM John has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 40 (25061)
11-30-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
11-30-2002 1:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Budikka:
Indeed, your entire vapor canopy argument (whatever it is), is meaningless if you are culling all your water from melted ice caps as you appear to be doing in the present argument.
I've been thinking about this ice cap issue, and wish to propose a solution.
Lets assume, first, that the ice caps pre-flood contained enough water to cover the earth. God, obviously, would have created them adequately for His purposes. Now, with not much thought it is apparent that these ice caps would have been enormous. Large enough, in fact, to deform the planet into something of a pancake shape. Here, we see evidence in scripture that such was the case. The world is, after all, described as something of a disk. We do have the problem however, that this scenario puts mesopotamia on the edge of the pancake so to speak. This, I believe, can be rectified with scripture by noting that the earth is also described as a circle-- obviously a reference to the extreme curvature of the earth in the regions of mesopotamia. At the appropriate moment, God caused millions of meteors to impact the earth, melting the ice sheets. Most hit the sheets directly but a few hit other regions, for what divine purpose it is not known. He also choose to mark the moon with craters as a testament to these great events. These massive ice caps melted catastrophically and the waters flowed over the earth. Such an event would so radically shift the gravitation center of the earth and weight distribution that the planet would flex into its now nearly global shape. However, before settling into a permanent state one would expect it to churn and wiggle like a water drop in zero-G. This intense geological activity is the source of our extant mountain ranges. Also note that this occilation would have been intense enough to through much of the water, once held in the ice caps, right off the planet. This flung-off water, perhaps being captured by Jupiter, thereby forming the moon of Europa. A further problem is also solved. This ejected water would carry away most of the heat generted by the meteor impacts.
I believe this to be an acceptable solution. Thank you all for joining me here today.

LOL
Maybe you should copyright this before Kent Hovind plagarises it for his next 'lecture'.
Brian.
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 11-30-2002 1:50 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 11-30-2002 3:38 PM Brian has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 40 (25073)
11-30-2002 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
11-30-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Maybe you should copyright this before Kent Hovind plagarises it for his next 'lecture'.
I think maybe I'll publish and go on a lecture tour myself. Do creationist have groupies? I wonder.....
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 2:08 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 11-30-2002 4:17 PM John has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 40 (25074)
11-30-2002 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
11-30-2002 3:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
Maybe you should copyright this before Kent Hovind plagarises it for his next 'lecture'.
I think maybe I'll publish and go on a lecture tour myself. Do creationist have groupies? I wonder.....

Yes they have groupies, however they all look like Gretchen Passantino!
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 11-30-2002 3:38 PM John has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 7 of 40 (25089)
11-30-2002 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
11-30-2002 1:50 PM


John,
You forgot something important from your post. You left out the following essential statement.
If this message has been a blessing to you please send a donation
Otherwise its great just don't forget the most important part again!
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 11-30-2002 1:50 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John, posted 11-30-2002 8:41 PM Randy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 40 (25092)
11-30-2002 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Randy
11-30-2002 7:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Randy:
John,
You forgot something important from your post. You left out the following essential statement.
If this message has been a blessing to you please send a donation
Otherwise its great just don't forget the most important part again!
Randy

arrrrgggggghhhhh...... how right you are!!!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Randy, posted 11-30-2002 7:46 PM Randy has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 40 (25098)
11-30-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by edge
11-30-2002 1:47 PM


"Rubbish. There is no way to tell if the soil is of that age. According to TC himself, the soil on this site could have been washed away two days earlier and then redeveloped by the dawn of the Cambrian. All we can really say is that the development of this soil was interrupted by the superdeposition of the Lamotte Sand. Just as Buddika will find, TC cannot comprehend this simple fact and will repeat his misunderstanding indefinitely."
--Possibly, thought the answer would be easily indicative, given some characteristics. Your hypothesis is no more tenable than mine with what information we have. You will have to show me that characteristics of the Cambrian sediments directly underlying the paleosol indicate erosion to a degree that would satisfy your hypothesis.
--It is possible to date paleosols, it is just difficult.
--I won't diliberatelly repeat this misunderstanding as I have stated it. It will, however, continue to be support that I may interpret it as a highly likely pre-flood soil, given its geologic position.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 1:47 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:00 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 12 by edge, posted 12-04-2002 12:24 AM TrueCreation has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 40 (25099)
11-30-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
11-30-2002 9:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Possibly, thought the answer would be easily indicative, given some characteristics. Your hypothesis is no more tenable than mine with what information we have. You will have to show me that characteristics of the Cambrian sediments directly underlying the paleosol indicate erosion to a degree that would satisfy your hypothesis.
Hunh? You said before the Cambrian sediments overlay the soil... Which is it? And, yes I will guarantee that the materials under the soil are an erosional surface.
quote:
--It is possible to date paleosols, it is just difficult.
Yes and I have shown you one.
quote:
--I won't diliberatelly repeat this misunderstanding as I have stated it. It will, however, continue to be support that I may interpret it as a highly likely pre-flood soil, given its geologic position.
You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 11-30-2002 9:49 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by TrueCreation, posted 12-04-2002 5:06 PM edge has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 40 (25102)
11-30-2002 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 9:35 PM


I really shouldn't pick on TC. But it's just too tempting:
quote:
--I remember something about there being marine sedimentary deposits in the geologic record...this is evidence of the flood. The problem is that you don't think the evidence adds up to make the global flood a conclusive theory. Don't side-step this.
What a howler, TC. You're killing me! Did you notice that there are marine sedimentary rocks being deposited on continental crust today? So, where is the flood?
quote:
--You don't have to! Grab yourself a textbook on geology and find out how sediments are deposited and their other diagenic processes.
Buddika, I'm not sure that this is good advice. Look where it got TC! I'm afraid you will go backwards in stead of forward
quote:
--Again I must ask you if you know what orogenesis means. Forget about Mt. Everest!
Oh, sure That's convenient! Let's forget about all of the mountains, especially the ones that show different ages of formation.
quote:
--Speciation. We do, however, find much in the fossil record which is extremely similar if not identical to modern flora and fauna. The new order of insect Gladiators. We have the remnants of the bug at 45 million years ago, their anatomy is identical to those existing today. I'm sure those fossils encased within Cambrian sediments will be fairly similar to something existing today.
So, TC, which Cambrian organisms did mammals speciate from? Remember you have only a couple of thousand years to do this.
quote:
--I don't know about you but I learned these geologic principals back when I was in 2nd grade.
Really?! In second grade! I have to apologize to you. I didn't realize that you were that advanced. No wonder I can't understand a thing you say
quote:
I don't have a problem with admitting this, I'm 16 and I'm making you look like a fool, do you really think your discouraging me? Your arguments are so sloppily thrown every which way that I don't think I'm even learning anything here..
Well, there's a reason for that. But I don’t think you want to hear it. But the 16-year old part, yeah, I believe that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 9:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by TrueCreation, posted 12-04-2002 4:58 PM edge has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 40 (25393)
12-04-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
11-30-2002 9:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No! It is evidence of sedimentation "
--The flood predicts sedimentation, and therefore a potential falsification can be made: No sedimentation = no flood. There is sedimentation, therefore, it does not falsify the flood and is evidence for it, though not a conclusive compilation which would render the flood as actually happened.
Wrong. There are plenty of locations and times where sedimentation was not occurring. Therefor, according to your analysis, the flood is falsified. Thank you TC.
quote:
"What is clear - from the facts of geology - is that there never was a one-time catastrophic global flood that covered everything and wiped out virtually every living organism, as the Bible story in Genesis contends."
--Well with your lack in geologic understanding I find that hard to believe coming form you, your effort at trying to support that claim is also very poor.
Can you elaborate on this? It would seem that your rebuttal here is very poor. You should have come up with some facts. Actually, B is correct on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 11-30-2002 9:49 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 40 (25404)
12-04-2002 6:48 AM


I want to post my vote for the best single-line quip in any Flood discussion on any board I've ever seen: "Your credibility is already at benthic levels with this flood story."
*applause*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 40 (25465)
12-04-2002 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by edge
11-30-2002 10:25 PM


"What a howler, TC. You're killing me! Did you notice that there are marine sedimentary rocks being deposited on continental crust today? So, where is the flood?"
--Like I said, it is evidence for the flood, though does nothing to say that it adds up to or say that the flood did happen.
"Buddika, I'm not sure that this is good advice. Look where it got TC! I'm afraid you will go backwards in stead of forward"
--I said what I said because he is trying to say that a big celestial bucket of 'muddy sediments' were thrown on the earth so that there could be some degree or another of granulometric distribution throughout the whole of the geo column, this logic of his is ridiculous. He wont release his grip on his bath tub strawman.
"Oh, sure That's convenient! Let's forget about all of the mountains, especially the ones that show different ages of formation."
--Elaborate?
"So, TC, which Cambrian organisms did mammals speciate from? Remember you have only a couple of thousand years to do this."
--None, Mammals speciated from those whose burials were higher in the geologic column, I believe that would be the Triassic+.
"Really?! In second grade! I have to apologize to you. I didn't realize that you were that advanced. No wonder I can't understand a thing you say"
--What isn't understandable about what I said here? It was a comment made in considering the post as a whole regards to his assertions about sedimentation.
"Well, there's a reason for that. But I don’t think you want to hear it. But the 16-year old part, yeah, I believe that!"
--The reason for that is because he's not making me do any research and I don't think he's made one assertion which would have me say that I've 'learned something' from it. Besides my doosie on the Arctic ice caps, but even then..
--Post #12-->
"Wrong. There are plenty of locations and times where sedimentation was not occurring. Therefor, according to your analysis, the flood is falsified. Thank you TC."
--I don't remember me saying anything about sedimentation being a constant.
"Can you elaborate on this? It would seem that your rebuttal here is very poor. You should have come up with some facts. Actually, B is correct on this."
--Should I assume you are reading his posts? I would be extremely surprised if anyone were to think it evident he has read any hard geologic text. All it seems he's read is every anti-creationist article known to human kind. He knows little of his terminology and how various geologic processes are carried out, only that he's heard that the effects do not show a global flood. How should he expect that I should take his word for it when this is all he's done.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:25 PM edge has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 40 (25466)
12-04-2002 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by edge
11-30-2002 10:00 PM


"Hunh? You said before the Cambrian sediments overlay the soil... Which is it? And, yes I will guarantee that the materials under the soil are an erosional surface."
--Oops. I would also, a pedogenic erosional feature. I mean to say as the Cambrian above the paleosol, rather than "underlying". Sorry about that.
"Yes and I have shown you one. "
--Where at? And if you have, why is it impossible to know its age?
"You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this."
--Sounds like you have the data which says that it isn't? I'd like to see it, since you have so much confidence that this is 'yet another' opportunity to show that I don't know anything about my geology right? You seem to enjoy attempting this at times.
--No mater the age of the paleosol whether it be 1Ga, or 700Mya, my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by edge, posted 11-30-2002 10:00 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by edge, posted 12-06-2002 11:53 AM TrueCreation has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024