Creationists seem to be cut from the same cloth as muslim fundamentalists. Blinded by their own close minded interpretation of scripture. Really, Earth was created in 6,000 years. Come on.
@jakedevon So you claim there is no geologic column but you have never looked at Geology. Typical Creationists, never looked but an expert in all sciences.
@jakedevon Yes, Go to the Grand Canyon and you will see a 'geologic column'. Not the whole thing, there are gaps. Go to Zion Park and you will see a different 'geologic column' with younger rocks.
The one you see in books is a time scale showing all the 'layers' as Time Periods.
I don't know why creationists have such a hard time telling the two apart.
So you are trying to put your burden of proof on me. You go find evidence for your own assertions, please. It is not up to me to find your evidence for you.
"Everywhere in the world has a 'geologic column',"
So you say. You got any evidence for your assertion? Or is this merely yet another of your many empty declaration that you won't, or, more likely, can't, support?
Crowl out of the box ís a hard task for any naturalist, but they don´t even realize thet they believe in the Supernatural, something that is even harder to make them to comprehend...
Don't fall for naturalism's propaganda, my brother. Science POINTS to the metaphysical.
When someone tells you that science does not address the metaphysical, ask them 'what experiment proved that?'
The slogan 'science deals only with the natural' is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. The scientific evidence for a metaphysical Creator is the existence of matter. After all, matter can't create itself.
@jls201: Be very cautious when taking the word of someone so gullible! So says someone who thinks snakes talk, woman came from a rib, Pi=3. and bats are birds. And your list, only two are worth talking about,. Indeed, you are the last one on the list. Cro-Magnon is an anatomically modern human being. But I'll address tha tlater. I've more than few irons in the fire today, dear.
@jls201: Well, you've gotten quite quiet there, my dear. What's your beef about Cro-Magnon? Do you think France doesn't exist? Or better yet, explain why you might think this way. I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know I can't do that. You're the one who will have to make the leap of imagination for that. But I can place some tools in front of you and see what you do with them.
@jls201 Piltdown man was the only Hoax. Neanderthal Man was a different kind of human. No us.
Nebraska Man was correctly IDed by the second person to look at it. They have several Lucy's, they walked upright. And you forgot Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo floresiensis.
@jls201 Piltdown Man was the only Hoax. Neanderthal Man is well documented, they even have some DNA proving they are not US. They were a different Kind of Human. There were 2 kinds of humans on the earth at the same time !
@jakedevon I will type slow for you... Neaderthals were humans. DNA studies prove they were not us, we are Homo sapien sapien. They were Homo Neanderthal. They were a different species of human.
Which geologic column are you talking about, the one in the text books or the layers in the Grand Canyon?
@jakedevon I will type slow for you... Neaderthals were humans. DNA studies prove they were not us, we are Homo sapien sapien. They were Homo Neanderthal. They were a different species of human.
Which geologic column are you talking about, the one in the text books or the layers in the Grand Canyon that make one?
You are claiming that there were more than one species of humans? You got any evidence for that? Evidence other than these heartfelt declarations that you seem to want people to believe by blind faith, I mean.
"Which geologic column are you talking about,"
If you had any evidence, you'd have posted it by now.
"...or the layers in the Grand Canyon that make one?"
You got any evidence that the layers in the Grand Canyon make a geologic column? Still waiting.
@jakedevon Yes, dummy, I just told you there is us and them. that makes two kinds of humans, can't you count.
Go to the Grand Canyon and open your eyes. There are 44 distinct layers. They are newer on top and older on the bottom. Some layers are sandstone from an old desert. some are limestone and slow growing corals. a geologic pile of dirt, sand and rock laid down over millions of years. = A GEOLOGIC COLUMN !
lol @ 1:51. It seems he is aware of all the different methods of radiometric dating except when it doesn't suit his purposes (like when he's trying to make it out as though only carbon-dating is used, which only reaches back about 60,000 years).
@jakedevon: Uh, that's because Hovind is full of crap. But I'll humor you. Willitson Basin in North Dakota. I'm quite able to discuss it in detail, should you care to. And for the record, I'm agnostic.
@jakedevon: Very much my pleasure. The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This single well passes thru all the geologic periods from holocene to precambrian. Ref:Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World. (Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group) Indeed this is just the beginning. There are 30 other basins all over the world that show this exact progression
why do creationists dwell on the past? They say things like "Darwin didn't even know about genetics so how could he know about how species come about?", and they say "Lyell did his work before all the dating methods, so how could he know anything about anything.". And they forget that these scientists lived over a century ago. They forget that scientists exist TODAY and know what they are talking about. Don't use Darwin and Lyell as though they are modern sources.
@jakedevon: You mean like that whole "creation ex nihlo" bit? Yeah, somewhat problematic, for you. Me I can walk across the street and see in any road cut the facts of which I speak. Deep water organisims progressing to shallow,. and then back to deep. Layers sandstones overlain with thick shales, and back again. Then a jump as the Paleozoic sea floor was lifted above the seas and then overlain with loess and glacial deposits from the last ice ages. Remarkable, really.
@jakedevon: Simple, because of evaporite deposits interspersed with oceanic deposits. And then you start looking at the chemical compositions of things like vast beds of carbonates, whose temperature of formation precludes a "global flood" as described. That much laid down in the space of a year? Would've released enough heat to cook all life. I'll explain a bit more later. I'm a nightshifter here, so it's time to say bye.
"Simple, because of the evaporite deposits interspersed with oceanic deposits."
As I already said, we are both looking at the same evidence. The creationists explanation also accounts for oceanic deposits: The great flood would make them a requirement.
So, again, besides blind faith, why do you believe Lyell's story? He made up a story, and you, as you say, bought it.
@jakedevon: You seem to be missing the point. Evaporite deposits form in the absence of water. With them being between oceanic or otherwise aquatic deposits rather precludes a global flood. Detroit sits on one of layered halite. Also, features like desert pavement found sandwiched, multiple layers of sand and shales (over 15000 layers) with life
You don't have to be so willfully ignorant. This so-called objection has been answered for years.
Your above statement would only be true if all of the water from the flood came from rain. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep opened. Most of the water came from under the crust of the earth.
Let us keep going and see what else you are wrong about.
@jakedevon: As far as under the crust...you are aware that it gets quite hot quite fast as you descend thru the crust? Any water trapped would've flashed into steam and cooked all life, sterilizing the planet. Simple physics of heat transfer. But I'll be back later and lay out the chemical aspects of what I was saying.
Before debunking your next supposed objection(s), I would like to ask, How many objections will I have to answer before you realize that you have a problem with your beliefs?
I mean, you passed over your supposed rain/heat objection almost as if it never happened.
You do understand why you were wrong about that, do you not?
@jakedevon: As I said before: Evaporite deposits form in the absence of water. if your argument applied I would've addressed it. It does not because I am showing mineral formations that happen without vaste quanitites of water. Additiaonally, as I have a life, I'm not really going to spend all that much time on this particular point. But here goes:
@jakedevon: In North Dakota, in the Willitsn Basin lies the Icebox shale. Once again, the mud that becomes shale requires still water for deposition. Above the Icebox lies 1,300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite, the Red River, Stony Mountain and Stonewall Formations, collectively known as the Bighorn Dolomite. (Data from W. H. Hunt Trust Larson #1 well, Mckenzie Co., North Dakota.)
@jakedevon:These cannot be flood deposits simply for reasons of heat production in their formation. Mathematical calculation: Formation of carbonate rock liberates about 1,207 kilocalories per mole (Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576). A column 400 meters high with a cross section area of 1 square meter would include 400 million cc of carbonate. Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 10 million moles of carbonate deposited over each square meter.
@jakedevon:Multiply this by 1,207,000 calories per mole to get the amount of energy required per square meter. Now, if you divide by the solar constant (1.96 cal/sq cm/minute or approximately 1 billion calories per year per square meter), you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 1171 times that received by the sun. Ergo, Noah's pleasure cruise = lobster in a pot time and all life dies.
@jakedevon: Actually, I did address it. Maybe you missed that little point about increasing temperature with depth? Hmmm? But selective blindness is a part and parcel of the YEC mindset. The heat of formation of those carbonate beds alone was what I was addressing, but indulge yourself. Please. Skip over the whole point about dryland deposits and talk about rain...
@jakedevon: 5 days ago. Willitson Basin. The data is freely available and far too volumnious to post in this particular venue. Since it is freely available, your choice not to avail youself of it is just that, your choice. Though I've never thought that being willfully ignorant was the best course for any endeavour.
@jakedevon: Are you saying that you have not read the data or you do not intend to read the data? As I've said, it's far too large to be all dropped in this forum. Additionally, that was a general comment. If you choose to see it as a personal attack, so be it. It was not my intention.
@jakedevon: You want the short verison then?OK: Willitson Basin, ND Surface: Pleistocene and Holocene Glacial deposits and soils. Tertiary Ft. Union Fm @ 100 feet Hells Creek Fm.@ 2250 feet Fox Hills.@ 3060 feet Pierre Shale @ 3200 feet Niobrara Chalk.@ 4400 feet Carlile Shale@4750 feet Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm @ 4910 feet Belle Fourche Shale @5000 feet Cretaceous Mowry Fm.@ 5370 feet Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm @ 5790 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm (part of Winnipeg)@14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm@14445 feet
Precambrian.@14945 feet
Each one sampled and tested. Each with defining mineralogical characteristics that in some places directly rules out formation in flood conditions. Additionally, fossil composition and count directly precludes any young-earth hypothesis.
@jakedevon: You seem to forget one small point: That's what references are for: Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World,(Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group) and Wilmarth, M. Grace, 1938. Lexicon of Geologic Names of the United States, Geological Survey Bulletin 896. Also Whittier et al, 1992. "General Chemistry" (Ft. Worth: Saunders College Publishing). Enjoy.
I take it that this means that you won't even try to prove what you say?
I'm not surprised. I wouldn't want to try to prove why anyone believes in the mythical geologic column either.
Charles Lyell made up a story and some people swallowed it. When asked for reasons why they believe it, these people commonly snowball. Just like you've been doing.
@jakedevon Go to the Grand Canyon and tell me you can't see layers of rock. Tell us you can't see the Geologic Column. Why aren't there any bunny fossils in the Grand Canyon, or dinosaur fossils? They hadn't evolved yet.
@jakedevon: Here are some more. The Ghadames Basin in Libya The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia The Oman Interior Basin in Oman The Western Desert Basin in Egypt The Adana Basin in Turkey The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria The Carpathian Basin in Poland The Baltic Basin in the USSR The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR The Farah Basin in Afghanistan The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
And some more: The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran The Manhai-Subei Basin in China The Jiuxi Basin China The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China The Tarim Basin China The Szechwan Basin China The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska The Tampico Embayment Mexico The Bogata Basin Colombia The Bonaparte Basin, Australia The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta
he's right, it doesnt exist. what are evos to do.. ha
tnafguy1 4 days ago
Sorry, meant to say earth is only 6000 years old. My mistake.
Fishchoker 6 months ago
Creationists seem to be cut from the same cloth as muslim fundamentalists. Blinded by their own close minded interpretation of scripture. Really, Earth was created in 6,000 years. Come on.
Fishchoker 6 months ago
@Fishchoker "Really, Earth was created in 6,000 years. Come on."
No one ever said "earth was created in 6,000 years"! Come on, that's ridiculous!
No No.... God did it in less than 6 days!
See Genesis.
jls201 6 months ago 2
@jls201 Hovind says the earth is only 6000 years old. There are trees older than 6000 years. Egyptians were farming in 6000 BC
Floods don't make distinct layers of different kinds of rocks.
Go to the Grand Canyon to see a geologic column, no one expects the whole column to be in one place.
gregrutz 4 months ago
Comment removed
Fishchoker 6 months ago
The truth is Kent hates Lyle because Geology proves Kent's idea of the bible wrong.
gregrutz 9 months ago
If every animal was created at the same time why are the fossils split into the different depths when they are found.
eg. You never find animals alive today in the lowest strata levels and you do not find dinosaurs in the higher strata levels?
IaVvideo 10 months ago
All profanity will be deleted AND proves the sinful nature of an unregenerate sole!
To all my brothers and sisters out there:
Matthew 5:43-47
jls201 1 year ago
"So you're refusing to look at the data?"
It is not my job to do your digging for you.
Please don't try to put the burden of your proof on me because I'll not dance to your tune. You back up your own position, y'know, if you can.
Also, I've really enjoyed showing everybody how you can't seem to back up your position.
Again, I don't think that you are fooling anybody. If you had any evidence for the geologic column, you'd have shown it by now.
jakedevon 2 years ago
"I've provided the data and the places where can check it."
No you have not.
All you've done is said where your supposed answers are to be found.
Just by giving somebody a shovel and telling them to 'start digging. the answers are out there somewhere' is not providing the data.
I don't think that you are fooling anybody. If you had any evidence that supported the geologic column, you'd have shown it by now.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon Go to the Grand Canyon and then tell us there is no Geologic Column. Look at the rocks exposed not the hole in the ground.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@jakedevon So you claim there is no geologic column but you have never looked at Geology. Typical Creationists, never looked but an expert in all sciences.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz
Do you believe that there is a geologic column? If so, why did you fail to post any evidence for it in your post?
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon Yes, Go to the Grand Canyon and you will see a 'geologic column'. Not the whole thing, there are gaps. Go to Zion Park and you will see a different 'geologic column' with younger rocks.
The one you see in books is a time scale showing all the 'layers' as Time Periods.
I don't know why creationists have such a hard time telling the two apart.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
What makes you think that a geologic column even exists? Besides blind faith, I mean.
I pointed out in my last post that you failed to post any evidence for it. And you have failed again to post any evidence for it. Do you have any?
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon Evidence?!? It's called Geology. Go read a Geology book. You can find out the earth is old and there was no global flood.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
"Go read a Geology book."
You want me to go find evidence for your assertions? Why can't you back up your own arguments? Is it because there is no evidence for your assertions?
You do believe in the geologic column by blind faith, don't you?
Tell the truth.
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon Go to the GRAND CANYON and look dummy. Everywhere in the world has a 'geologic column', you are standing on one.
Are you homeschooles?
gregrutz 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz
"Go to the GRAND CANYON and look dummy."
So you are trying to put your burden of proof on me. You go find evidence for your own assertions, please. It is not up to me to find your evidence for you.
"Everywhere in the world has a 'geologic column',"
So you say. You got any evidence for your assertion? Or is this merely yet another of your many empty declaration that you won't, or, more likely, can't, support?
Still waiting.
jakedevon 7 months ago
Science deals ONLY with the natural.
So if something Supernatural happens, science must push it to the back burner because it can not think outside of the box it is trapped in!
If you only trust science, you are trapped in the "Willingly Ignorant" box.
This is the reason no scientist can figure out, decisively, what happened before the "BIG BANG".
Crawl out of the box that you willingly locked yourself into and you will see the light!!!!
IT"S GLORIOUS OUT HERE!!!!!!
jls201 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jls201: Yes, I must agree with you on this: IT"S GLORIOUS OUT HERE! At least we can both agree on that.
magick205 2 years ago
@jls201 How would you know something supernatural happened?!?
gregrutz 9 months ago
@gregrutz - "How would you know something supernatural happened?!?"
You would have to experiance it?
jls201 9 months ago
@jls201 And that would prove it is not supernatural.
gregrutz 9 months ago
@jls201
IT´S GLORIOUS OTU HERE!!!!!!!
I bet you´re absoutely right
Crowl out of the box ís a hard task for any naturalist, but they don´t even realize thet they believe in the Supernatural, something that is even harder to make them to comprehend...
Excelent comment
realhomosapiens 8 months ago
@jls201
"Science deals ONLY with the natural."
Don't fall for naturalism's propaganda, my brother. Science POINTS to the metaphysical.
When someone tells you that science does not address the metaphysical, ask them 'what experiment proved that?'
The slogan 'science deals only with the natural' is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one. The scientific evidence for a metaphysical Creator is the existence of matter. After all, matter can't create itself.
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon "Don't fall for the naturalism's propaganda, my brother."
You make a good point brother when you say "Science points to the metaphysical"
I see the folly in my statment now, as if science is only ment for natural study!
Thank you for pointing this out!
Keep up the good work and God bless you brother!
jls201 7 months ago
@jls201 Science has no room for accident. The natural world is in full support of the creation model. Sceince is happy with the bible.
warriorprince1010 7 months ago
@warriorprince1010 "Science has no room for accident"
How long was Pluto considered a planet? oops!
jls201 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jls201 "Science has no room for accident"
How long was Pluto considered a planet? oops! Even for a extremist crackpot atheist, that was a poor reply dude. Try again next week.
warriorprince1010 6 months ago
Any time an evolutionist opens there mouth be skeptical. They are the ones who are MOST prone to latch onto a lie without looking at the facts.
Lucy = Hoax
Heidelberg Man = Hoax
Nebraska Man = Hoax
Piltdown Man = Hoax
Peking Man = Hoax
Neanderthal Man = Hoax
New Guinea Man = Hoax
Cro-Magnon Man = Hoax
Be very cautious when taking the word of someone so gullible!
jls201 2 years ago
@jls201: Be very cautious when taking the word of someone so gullible! So says someone who thinks snakes talk, woman came from a rib, Pi=3. and bats are birds. And your list, only two are worth talking about,. Indeed, you are the last one on the list. Cro-Magnon is an anatomically modern human being. But I'll address tha tlater. I've more than few irons in the fire today, dear.
magick205 2 years ago
@jls201: Well, you've gotten quite quiet there, my dear. What's your beef about Cro-Magnon? Do you think France doesn't exist? Or better yet, explain why you might think this way. I'm not interested in changing your mind. I know I can't do that. You're the one who will have to make the leap of imagination for that. But I can place some tools in front of you and see what you do with them.
magick205 2 years ago
@jls201 Piltdown man was the only Hoax. Neanderthal Man was a different kind of human. No us.
Nebraska Man was correctly IDed by the second person to look at it. They have several Lucy's, they walked upright. And you forgot Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis, Kenyanthropus platyops, Australopithecus garhi, Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo floresiensis.
gregrutz 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jls201 "How would you know something supernatural happened?!?"
You would have to experiance it?
And IF you experiancece it then it would not be supernatural, would it?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@jls201 Piltdown Man was the only Hoax. Neanderthal Man is well documented, they even have some DNA proving they are not US. They were a different Kind of Human. There were 2 kinds of humans on the earth at the same time !
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
Did you ever post some evidence for the geologic column?
"Neanderthal Man is well documented,"
So you say. Do you have any evidence that the so-called neanderthal were not just human?
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon I will type slow for you... Neaderthals were humans. DNA studies prove they were not us, we are Homo sapien sapien. They were Homo Neanderthal. They were a different species of human.
Which geologic column are you talking about, the one in the text books or the layers in the Grand Canyon?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@jakedevon I will type slow for you... Neaderthals were humans. DNA studies prove they were not us, we are Homo sapien sapien. They were Homo Neanderthal. They were a different species of human.
Which geologic column are you talking about, the one in the text books or the layers in the Grand Canyon that make one?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
"Neaderthals were humans."
You are claiming that there were more than one species of humans? You got any evidence for that? Evidence other than these heartfelt declarations that you seem to want people to believe by blind faith, I mean.
"Which geologic column are you talking about,"
If you had any evidence, you'd have posted it by now.
"...or the layers in the Grand Canyon that make one?"
You got any evidence that the layers in the Grand Canyon make a geologic column? Still waiting.
jakedevon 7 months ago
@jakedevon Yes, dummy, I just told you there is us and them. that makes two kinds of humans, can't you count.
Go to the Grand Canyon and open your eyes. There are 44 distinct layers. They are newer on top and older on the bottom. Some layers are sandstone from an old desert. some are limestone and slow growing corals. a geologic pile of dirt, sand and rock laid down over millions of years. = A GEOLOGIC COLUMN !
gregrutz 7 months ago
lol @ 1:51. It seems he is aware of all the different methods of radiometric dating except when it doesn't suit his purposes (like when he's trying to make it out as though only carbon-dating is used, which only reaches back about 60,000 years).
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Hey!
There are no atheists posting the evidence that disproves what Dr. Hovind says about the geologic column.
Huh. Very telling.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: Uh, that's because Hovind is full of crap. But I'll humor you. Willitson Basin in North Dakota. I'm quite able to discuss it in detail, should you care to. And for the record, I'm agnostic.
magick205 2 years ago
I care to.
As far as I know, there is no evidence that supports the so-called geologic column.
Charles Lyell assigned each layer an age and an index fossil. And then many people accepted his assumptions with blind faith.
But, hey, give it your best shot.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: Very much my pleasure. The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This single well passes thru all the geologic periods from holocene to precambrian. Ref:Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World. (Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group) Indeed this is just the beginning. There are 30 other basins all over the world that show this exact progression
magick205 2 years ago
"This single well passes thru all the geologic periods..."
Okay, just because you swallowed Lyell's assigned layers and ages, that doesn't mean that I should too.
A skeptic will want real evidence, not blind faith.
jakedevon 2 years ago
why do creationists dwell on the past? They say things like "Darwin didn't even know about genetics so how could he know about how species come about?", and they say "Lyell did his work before all the dating methods, so how could he know anything about anything.". And they forget that these scientists lived over a century ago. They forget that scientists exist TODAY and know what they are talking about. Don't use Darwin and Lyell as though they are modern sources.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago 2
"Don't use Darwin and Lyell as though they are modern sources."
That is really a red herring.
I say that Magick believes the geologic column by blind faith. He is trying to give evidence why people should believe in it.
Either there is real evidence for the geologic column, or there is not.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: You mean like that whole "creation ex nihlo" bit? Yeah, somewhat problematic, for you. Me I can walk across the street and see in any road cut the facts of which I speak. Deep water organisims progressing to shallow,. and then back to deep. Layers sandstones overlain with thick shales, and back again. Then a jump as the Paleozoic sea floor was lifted above the seas and then overlain with loess and glacial deposits from the last ice ages. Remarkable, really.
magick205 2 years ago
"You mean like that whole "creation ex nihlo" bit?"
Red herring. But I can understand why you want to change the subject. I don't think that there is any real evidence for the geologic column either.
"Remarkable, really."
We are both looking at the same evidence. So, how does one know that your and Lyell's interpretation is the correct one? Besides blind faith, I mean.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: Simple, because of evaporite deposits interspersed with oceanic deposits. And then you start looking at the chemical compositions of things like vast beds of carbonates, whose temperature of formation precludes a "global flood" as described. That much laid down in the space of a year? Would've released enough heat to cook all life. I'll explain a bit more later. I'm a nightshifter here, so it's time to say bye.
magick205 2 years ago
"Simple, because of the evaporite deposits interspersed with oceanic deposits."
As I already said, we are both looking at the same evidence. The creationists explanation also accounts for oceanic deposits: The great flood would make them a requirement.
So, again, besides blind faith, why do you believe Lyell's story? He made up a story, and you, as you say, bought it.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: You seem to be missing the point. Evaporite deposits form in the absence of water. With them being between oceanic or otherwise aquatic deposits rather precludes a global flood. Detroit sits on one of layered halite. Also, features like desert pavement found sandwiched, multiple layers of sand and shales (over 15000 layers) with life
magick205 2 years ago
"Would've released enough heat to cook all life."
You don't have to be so willfully ignorant. This so-called objection has been answered for years.
Your above statement would only be true if all of the water from the flood came from rain. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep opened. Most of the water came from under the crust of the earth.
Let us keep going and see what else you are wrong about.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: As far as under the crust...you are aware that it gets quite hot quite fast as you descend thru the crust? Any water trapped would've flashed into steam and cooked all life, sterilizing the planet. Simple physics of heat transfer. But I'll be back later and lay out the chemical aspects of what I was saying.
magick205 2 years ago
"You seem to be missing the point."
Before debunking your next supposed objection(s), I would like to ask, How many objections will I have to answer before you realize that you have a problem with your beliefs?
I mean, you passed over your supposed rain/heat objection almost as if it never happened.
You do understand why you were wrong about that, do you not?
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: As I said before: Evaporite deposits form in the absence of water. if your argument applied I would've addressed it. It does not because I am showing mineral formations that happen without vaste quanitites of water. Additiaonally, as I have a life, I'm not really going to spend all that much time on this particular point. But here goes:
magick205 2 years ago
@jakedevon: In North Dakota, in the Willitsn Basin lies the Icebox shale. Once again, the mud that becomes shale requires still water for deposition. Above the Icebox lies 1,300 feet of Ordovician limestone and dolomite, the Red River, Stony Mountain and Stonewall Formations, collectively known as the Bighorn Dolomite. (Data from W. H. Hunt Trust Larson #1 well, Mckenzie Co., North Dakota.)
magick205 2 years ago
@jakedevon:These cannot be flood deposits simply for reasons of heat production in their formation. Mathematical calculation: Formation of carbonate rock liberates about 1,207 kilocalories per mole (Wittier et al, 1992, p. 576). A column 400 meters high with a cross section area of 1 square meter would include 400 million cc of carbonate. Since the density of the carbonate is around 2.5 g/cc this means that there are 10 million moles of carbonate deposited over each square meter.
magick205 2 years ago
@jakedevon:Multiply this by 1,207,000 calories per mole to get the amount of energy required per square meter. Now, if you divide by the solar constant (1.96 cal/sq cm/minute or approximately 1 billion calories per year per square meter), you find that to deposit these beds in one year requires that the energy emitted by each meter squared would be 1171 times that received by the sun. Ergo, Noah's pleasure cruise = lobster in a pot time and all life dies.
magick205 2 years ago
@magick
All those posts and you avoided my questions from my single post.
Ah, I understand. You seem to realize that you can't defend your beliefs, so you focus on attacking mine.
Understandable.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: Actually, I did address it. Maybe you missed that little point about increasing temperature with depth? Hmmm? But selective blindness is a part and parcel of the YEC mindset. The heat of formation of those carbonate beds alone was what I was addressing, but indulge yourself. Please. Skip over the whole point about dryland deposits and talk about rain...
Really, I'm quite interested on this point.
magick205 2 years ago
"Maybe you missed that little point about..."
Really that is a red herring.
I asked for evidence for Lyell's story about the geologic column.
If you have any, please post some.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: 5 days ago. Willitson Basin. The data is freely available and far too volumnious to post in this particular venue. Since it is freely available, your choice not to avail youself of it is just that, your choice. Though I've never thought that being willfully ignorant was the best course for any endeavour.
magick205 2 years ago
"5 days ago. Willitson Basin."
How do you think that this supports your position?
"Though I've never thought that being willfully ignorant was the best course for any endeavour."
Personal attacks in lieu of evidence. If that is what you have, then I guess that is what you'll use.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: Are you saying that you have not read the data or you do not intend to read the data? As I've said, it's far too large to be all dropped in this forum. Additionally, that was a general comment. If you choose to see it as a personal attack, so be it. It was not my intention.
magick205 2 years ago
"As I've said, it's far too large to be dropped in this forum."
I think that what you are saying is that you know of no evidence for the geologic column that you could post on this thread.
Is that what you're saying?
jakedevon 2 years ago
magick205 2 years ago
magick205 2 years ago
magick205 2 years ago
@jakedevon; Finallly,
Ordovician Black Island Fm (part of Winnipeg)@14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm@14445 feet
Precambrian.@14945 feet
Each one sampled and tested. Each with defining mineralogical characteristics that in some places directly rules out formation in flood conditions. Additionally, fossil composition and count directly precludes any young-earth hypothesis.
magick205 2 years ago
"Each one sampled and tested."
I have no idea how you will prove that here.
But, hey, give it your best shot.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon: You seem to forget one small point: That's what references are for: Robertson Group, 1989. Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World,(Llandudno Gwynedd, England: The Robertson Group) and Wilmarth, M. Grace, 1938. Lexicon of Geologic Names of the United States, Geological Survey Bulletin 896. Also Whittier et al, 1992. "General Chemistry" (Ft. Worth: Saunders College Publishing). Enjoy.
magick205 2 years ago
@magick:
I take it that this means that you won't even try to prove what you say?
I'm not surprised. I wouldn't want to try to prove why anyone believes in the mythical geologic column either.
Charles Lyell made up a story and some people swallowed it. When asked for reasons why they believe it, these people commonly snowball. Just like you've been doing.
jakedevon 2 years ago
@jakedevon Go to the Grand Canyon and tell me you can't see layers of rock. Tell us you can't see the Geologic Column. Why aren't there any bunny fossils in the Grand Canyon, or dinosaur fossils? They hadn't evolved yet.
gregrutz 9 months ago
magick205 2 years ago
magick205 2 years ago