@MrNewlife888: Excellent arguments? True. All coming from gregrutz, lawilson2000, and voiceoftruth2006. This Vietz guy? I wouldn't let him take out my trash.
Where YECers fail, they do not look beyond the edge of their nose. You simply cannot look at a single event (like the eruption of Mount St Helens) and then assert something larger then it really was. If you want to prove a flood, then you must find evidence around the world, not just one location. The eruption of MSH happened 28 years ago. Surely, there are other areas YECers can look. Like the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Interesting that I see little in the YEC websites on that event.
well you and your friends under a pretence of absolute correctness never say it could be this old or that old you simply say it is so old. so why should we piter pater around the bush if its legal for you the same goes for us, so stuff you. indian ocean is not in a forest situation and tsunami was not studies by veith that i know of. make sure not to laugh to hard there.
If you want to treat the Genesis account seriously, would not YECers be more successful by looking at comparative models left by a tsunami, instead of a single volcanic eruption that occurred 28 years ago? If you want to compare an apple, you don't use an orange.
no both mud flows. just one had more like half a mountain you egg head. the other had more water then mud. also he is using this to compare to coal pits we deem to be millions of years old in places that are high up above sea level. don't smoke week before you reply please.
It took you are couple of months to find and answer and it is still unsatisfying. As for this weed thing, you can't you come up with a better insult then that? You really need practice.
However, you are still making an apples-oranges comparison. Mudflows leave distinctive characteristics that can be identified and compared. If you are saying that "Noah's Flood" left mudflow deposits, then we should expect the enire geologic column to resemble mudflow deposts. But, they don't.
This is why your side is not respected by "big science." You simply do not get it.
no one said the entire colum must have been efected but mainly the surface portions visible to us. also since we believe in a creator what is to stop me from saying simply it was created that way. and the light from the start was created as is in full motion. well?
Now this is the most nonsensical argument I have seen yet and it certainly shows you have no understanding of what is being advanced by your fellow YECers.
If you really want to be treated seriously, then your side needs to develop a model that is predictable and it confrom to neighboring regions. On this ground your argument fails.
also this is mainly to say that you were not there and don't actually know for sure the truth of the matter. you have a lot of assumptions yourself. this is mainly to propose and show by what we do actually know and have seen that such a thing may be possible under catastrophic circumstances. unlike you who say it is not possible at all. and must have taken mil and bil of years to be formed. the truth is you cannot say that isnt that the truth. so think about that for a sec.
@lawilson200 this is in a forest situation and layering is required none of which can be compared to a tsunami. it simply outline the possibility beyond shadow of a doubt that it can happen fast, and he compares it to another similar are. which scientists claim it is millions of years worth of layering due to there pigheaded standpoint.
@ninnzbinnz - I do love revisiting old postings. My question is, why are you revisiting this old posting? Do you think anything has changed in the three years since we last exchanged barbs? I have noticed that you have not learned anything. We live on a dynamic planet. Some processes are gradual. Other processes occur catastrophically. There is nothing pigheaded about it.
@ninnzbinnz - Now that I had a chance to rewatch this video, what first comes to mind is just how badly Veith described the eruption of MSH. I did recognize where he picked up his argument, it is almost verbatium from ICR's videos. The USGS have a large number of publications online on MSH, he would be better off consulting them. The most recent Journal of the Geological Society (of London) has a fascinating review of Pennsylvanian upright trees in the US.. You should read it.
@ninnzbinnz No one ever said layers can not happen quickly. People miss represent uniformitarianism, thinking it means slow and gradual and uniform. It just says the >processes< are the same, volcanos today same as yesterday.
Floods now just like in the past. Six great mass extinctions in the past.
Proving something happens fast does not prove the 44 distinct layers in the Grand Canyon did not take a long time to be laid down and then raised up to 8000 ft.ASL
Yippee! Another video by the Shithead from Stellenbosch!
For anyone who's new, the presenter of the video is Walter Veith, an animal nutritionist so incompetent he thinks cats were, and can be, vegetarian. He is NOT a geologist, as I'm sure you guessed.
"This is a mud slide, it must have happened under water!" Utter rubbish. Go to Cuba in hurricane season and you'll see mudslides. Cretard fool.
You essentially summed up everything. Walter Veith information on the eruption of Mount St Helens is so far off the mark, I had a hard time not disturbing my co-workers by laughing too loud as I was watching it.
your response is much funnier then the video as it truly proves you havent a clue nor a legg to stand on. being the ignorant man that you are. with no evidence. infact you should be a stand up comedian with shit like that
Unlike people from the Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, I actually have a small degree of respect for researchers at the Geoscience Research Institute. At people like Harold G Coffin make a showing of doing science.
mr geologist. maybe a verticaly fossilised whale in what aparently took mil or bil years to form. yet a whale carcase is fully disintergrated in less then a month? what about an iron pot found in coal rock layer dated 300mil years old? eorsion vs uplift we should all be covered by water and no fossil record present? i have rispect but explain this
Aside from the technical details that your speaker flubbed (there wasn't a mudflow in April 1980), Coffin and Fritz (who I like more) actually looked in the wrong place in their studies of MSH mudflows. What they should have done was looked in the South Toutle River Valley and Pine Creek. There they would find perfect similiarities to the depositional conditions observed at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park.
There is a principle in science called Occuum's Razor, which says that the simplist explanation is most likely the correct explanation. The lahars of Mount St Helens only suggest one thing, lahars. YECers will need to look at more examples if they want to establish Noah's Flood as fact.
so tell me can a river that slowly erods make a v shaped canyon, or will it deposit and unsercut. also why do we see no evidence for rivers being older than 4-5 tousand years old. ill post more vids check my trex vid
Rivers not being older than 4-5kya? Based on what?
Erosional forces on rivers depend on a number of factors, angle, speed, medium, etc. Howevers, if a river does cut a canyon, they tend to be V shaped. There are exceptions to this rule.
anyway i havent enough space to post but watch vid 2 and 3 to see why its not possible to have been so long as they say it was. watch to the end plase as its all relevant. as for grand canyon what river could have been that deep. what source would feed that sort of flow? and if it was gradual over mil years why did it not undercut and deposit. why are all the contact points flat? vid 2and 3
I love it when a YECer attempts to associate their nonsense theory with Mount St Helens! This guy does not have a single clue what happened at Mount St Helens, the chain events or even the impact the eruption had on the local fauna and flora. Clueless. Simply clueless.
why dont you rebut clueless man. u gues all the same im always cluless yet you post no vid responce and no tangable evidence yet when i make a claim i have to roll the red carpet out to prove it even more then i already have. goodby hatefull person
Actually, I am compilling a video on this subject. However, it is not in direct response to the nonsense expressed by your speaker. But that can be worked into future plans.
very good you are the first of 1000s even though you are reduced to insult at least you claim an atempt to post a rebutl. co for your hearts delight infact i encourage you to do so!!!
Frankly, I have not insulted anyone. I live 50 miles south of Mount St Helens and I am old enough to remember what MSH was like before she erupted in 1980. Finding information about MSH is not that hard. The US Geological Survey has made most of their publications on the mountain available for download and the Cascade Volcano Observatory also is an excellent source. Your speaker obviously made no attempt to look this information up, before giving his talk. This makes him clueless.
well please prove the tree stuff he talked of is wrong. and prove to me they did not find the trees as such. and prove to me the trees were not oriantated. and prove there was no bark on the bottom. you all talk for now but i delight in your vid reply
Your speaker material comes entirely from work performed by Harold Coffin, which was good enough to actually be pubished in peer reviewed journals. Coffin work wasn't wrong. The trees at Specimen Ridge were the result of mudflows. Instead, he ignored the source. It wasn't the Yellowstone Super-Volcano responsible for those trees. It was the Absaroka's.
What seperates Coffin with GRI from Austin with ICR, Coffin knows how to put together papers which have been published in peer reviewed papers. The orientation of trees appeared in the GSA Bulletin in 1976 and verified by Fritz (1980, 1982, 1984). Coffin fault is the sin of ommission. He ignores the source of the mudflows, which is the Absarokas. And he ignores the presence of ancient soils in each of the root systmes. While not always the rule, mudflows are commonly associated w/volcanoes.
well yes all that being the case. its stil a mud flow. also i May have edited some of walters presentations. you got to remember that i have many dvds to cram into a few utube segmants. but anyway its still a mud flow so what the point here
There are four basic types of sediment gravity flows. Three of these events occur in water. One involves gases. Each have a destinctive signature in the rock record. If your mudflow occurred beneath water, there would be a distinctive signature to indicate this. The fact is, there is none. Neither will you find lustrine deposits, indicating a freshwater lake. The mudflows at Specimen Ridge are not unique. They occurred 50 mya, from nearby Mount Wasburn. No Noah Flood evidence here.
Excellent arguments in this series. Thanks for posting.
MrNewlife888 2 years ago
@MrNewlife888: Excellent arguments? True. All coming from gregrutz, lawilson2000, and voiceoftruth2006. This Vietz guy? I wouldn't let him take out my trash.
magick205 2 years ago
"coal pits we deem to be millions of years old in places that are high up above sea level"
How many years does it take to grow trees and then bury them deep enough to make coal and then raise the whole area high above sea level.
I would just guess it takes millions of years.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Where YECers fail, they do not look beyond the edge of their nose. You simply cannot look at a single event (like the eruption of Mount St Helens) and then assert something larger then it really was. If you want to prove a flood, then you must find evidence around the world, not just one location. The eruption of MSH happened 28 years ago. Surely, there are other areas YECers can look. Like the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Interesting that I see little in the YEC websites on that event.
lawilson200 4 years ago 2
well you and your friends under a pretence of absolute correctness never say it could be this old or that old you simply say it is so old. so why should we piter pater around the bush if its legal for you the same goes for us, so stuff you. indian ocean is not in a forest situation and tsunami was not studies by veith that i know of. make sure not to laugh to hard there.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
If you want to treat the Genesis account seriously, would not YECers be more successful by looking at comparative models left by a tsunami, instead of a single volcanic eruption that occurred 28 years ago? If you want to compare an apple, you don't use an orange.
lawilson200 4 years ago
no both mud flows. just one had more like half a mountain you egg head. the other had more water then mud. also he is using this to compare to coal pits we deem to be millions of years old in places that are high up above sea level. don't smoke week before you reply please.
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
It took you are couple of months to find and answer and it is still unsatisfying. As for this weed thing, you can't you come up with a better insult then that? You really need practice.
H
lawilson200 3 years ago
no i just cant be bothered answering you.
cause your arguments are a dime a dozen.
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
Then why bother?
lawilson200 3 years ago
However, you are still making an apples-oranges comparison. Mudflows leave distinctive characteristics that can be identified and compared. If you are saying that "Noah's Flood" left mudflow deposits, then we should expect the enire geologic column to resemble mudflow deposts. But, they don't.
This is why your side is not respected by "big science." You simply do not get it.
lawilson200 3 years ago
no one said the entire colum must have been efected but mainly the surface portions visible to us. also since we believe in a creator what is to stop me from saying simply it was created that way. and the light from the start was created as is in full motion. well?
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
Now this is the most nonsensical argument I have seen yet and it certainly shows you have no understanding of what is being advanced by your fellow YECers.
If you really want to be treated seriously, then your side needs to develop a model that is predictable and it confrom to neighboring regions. On this ground your argument fails.
lawilson200 3 years ago
also this is mainly to say that you were not there and don't actually know for sure the truth of the matter. you have a lot of assumptions yourself. this is mainly to propose and show by what we do actually know and have seen that such a thing may be possible under catastrophic circumstances. unlike you who say it is not possible at all. and must have taken mil and bil of years to be formed. the truth is you cannot say that isnt that the truth. so think about that for a sec.
ninnzbinnz 3 years ago
What? You do not know me at all. Talk about making assumptions! Look in a mirror sometime!
lawilson200 3 years ago
@lawilson200 this is in a forest situation and layering is required none of which can be compared to a tsunami. it simply outline the possibility beyond shadow of a doubt that it can happen fast, and he compares it to another similar are. which scientists claim it is millions of years worth of layering due to there pigheaded standpoint.
ninnzbinnz 10 months ago
@ninnzbinnz - I do love revisiting old postings. My question is, why are you revisiting this old posting? Do you think anything has changed in the three years since we last exchanged barbs? I have noticed that you have not learned anything. We live on a dynamic planet. Some processes are gradual. Other processes occur catastrophically. There is nothing pigheaded about it.
lawilson200 10 months ago
@ninnzbinnz - Now that I had a chance to rewatch this video, what first comes to mind is just how badly Veith described the eruption of MSH. I did recognize where he picked up his argument, it is almost verbatium from ICR's videos. The USGS have a large number of publications online on MSH, he would be better off consulting them. The most recent Journal of the Geological Society (of London) has a fascinating review of Pennsylvanian upright trees in the US.. You should read it.
lawilson200 10 months ago
@ninnzbinnz No one ever said layers can not happen quickly. People miss represent uniformitarianism, thinking it means slow and gradual and uniform. It just says the >processes< are the same, volcanos today same as yesterday.
Floods now just like in the past. Six great mass extinctions in the past.
Proving something happens fast does not prove the 44 distinct layers in the Grand Canyon did not take a long time to be laid down and then raised up to 8000 ft.ASL
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from ninnzbinnz
voiceoftruth2006 you are an ignorant bigot so im gona ban you. you talk crap all day
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Yippee! Another video by the Shithead from Stellenbosch!
For anyone who's new, the presenter of the video is Walter Veith, an animal nutritionist so incompetent he thinks cats were, and can be, vegetarian. He is NOT a geologist, as I'm sure you guessed.
"This is a mud slide, it must have happened under water!" Utter rubbish. Go to Cuba in hurricane season and you'll see mudslides. Cretard fool.
voiceoftruth2006 4 years ago
You essentially summed up everything. Walter Veith information on the eruption of Mount St Helens is so far off the mark, I had a hard time not disturbing my co-workers by laughing too loud as I was watching it.
lawilson200 4 years ago
your response is much funnier then the video as it truly proves you havent a clue nor a legg to stand on. being the ignorant man that you are. with no evidence. infact you should be a stand up comedian with shit like that
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Unlike people from the Creation Research Society, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, I actually have a small degree of respect for researchers at the Geoscience Research Institute. At people like Harold G Coffin make a showing of doing science.
lawilson200 4 years ago
mr geologist. maybe a verticaly fossilised whale in what aparently took mil or bil years to form. yet a whale carcase is fully disintergrated in less then a month? what about an iron pot found in coal rock layer dated 300mil years old? eorsion vs uplift we should all be covered by water and no fossil record present? i have rispect but explain this
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
See your other video.
lawilson200 4 years ago
how do you people never actualy tackle the entire clip but rather post shit that has nothing to do with the matter
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Aside from the technical details that your speaker flubbed (there wasn't a mudflow in April 1980), Coffin and Fritz (who I like more) actually looked in the wrong place in their studies of MSH mudflows. What they should have done was looked in the South Toutle River Valley and Pine Creek. There they would find perfect similiarities to the depositional conditions observed at Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone National Park.
lawilson200 4 years ago
well can my speaker theory apply to both places but to prove your theory right we can only look in certain places you permit. funny science ??
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
There is a principle in science called Occuum's Razor, which says that the simplist explanation is most likely the correct explanation. The lahars of Mount St Helens only suggest one thing, lahars. YECers will need to look at more examples if they want to establish Noah's Flood as fact.
lawilson200 4 years ago
so tell me can a river that slowly erods make a v shaped canyon, or will it deposit and unsercut. also why do we see no evidence for rivers being older than 4-5 tousand years old. ill post more vids check my trex vid
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Rivers not being older than 4-5kya? Based on what?
Erosional forces on rivers depend on a number of factors, angle, speed, medium, etc. Howevers, if a river does cut a canyon, they tend to be V shaped. There are exceptions to this rule.
lawilson200 4 years ago
anyway i havent enough space to post but watch vid 2 and 3 to see why its not possible to have been so long as they say it was. watch to the end plase as its all relevant. as for grand canyon what river could have been that deep. what source would feed that sort of flow? and if it was gradual over mil years why did it not undercut and deposit. why are all the contact points flat? vid 2and 3
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it is time for you to take a course in geology.
lawilson200 4 years ago 2
I love it when a YECer attempts to associate their nonsense theory with Mount St Helens! This guy does not have a single clue what happened at Mount St Helens, the chain events or even the impact the eruption had on the local fauna and flora. Clueless. Simply clueless.
lawilson200 4 years ago
why dont you rebut clueless man. u gues all the same im always cluless yet you post no vid responce and no tangable evidence yet when i make a claim i have to roll the red carpet out to prove it even more then i already have. goodby hatefull person
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Actually, I am compilling a video on this subject. However, it is not in direct response to the nonsense expressed by your speaker. But that can be worked into future plans.
lawilson200 4 years ago
very good you are the first of 1000s even though you are reduced to insult at least you claim an atempt to post a rebutl. co for your hearts delight infact i encourage you to do so!!!
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Frankly, I have not insulted anyone. I live 50 miles south of Mount St Helens and I am old enough to remember what MSH was like before she erupted in 1980. Finding information about MSH is not that hard. The US Geological Survey has made most of their publications on the mountain available for download and the Cascade Volcano Observatory also is an excellent source. Your speaker obviously made no attempt to look this information up, before giving his talk. This makes him clueless.
lawilson200 4 years ago 2
well please prove the tree stuff he talked of is wrong. and prove to me they did not find the trees as such. and prove to me the trees were not oriantated. and prove there was no bark on the bottom. you all talk for now but i delight in your vid reply
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
Working on it! It will be ready in about two to three weeks (I do have job and other hobbies).
However, I have long ago learned that the "proof" which you seek, can fall on top of your head and you still would ignore it.
lawilson200 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS-I just posted a video response for another member of youtube on Mount St Helnens. It is a start. Just click on my name and you will see it.
lawilson200 4 years ago 2
"well please prove the tree stuff...wrong."
Your speaker material comes entirely from work performed by Harold Coffin, which was good enough to actually be pubished in peer reviewed journals. Coffin work wasn't wrong. The trees at Specimen Ridge were the result of mudflows. Instead, he ignored the source. It wasn't the Yellowstone Super-Volcano responsible for those trees. It was the Absaroka's.
lawilson200 4 years ago
mud flow none the less.
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
What seperates Coffin with GRI from Austin with ICR, Coffin knows how to put together papers which have been published in peer reviewed papers. The orientation of trees appeared in the GSA Bulletin in 1976 and verified by Fritz (1980, 1982, 1984). Coffin fault is the sin of ommission. He ignores the source of the mudflows, which is the Absarokas. And he ignores the presence of ancient soils in each of the root systmes. While not always the rule, mudflows are commonly associated w/volcanoes.
lawilson200 4 years ago 2
well yes all that being the case. its stil a mud flow. also i May have edited some of walters presentations. you got to remember that i have many dvds to cram into a few utube segmants. but anyway its still a mud flow so what the point here
ninnzbinnz 4 years ago
There are four basic types of sediment gravity flows. Three of these events occur in water. One involves gases. Each have a destinctive signature in the rock record. If your mudflow occurred beneath water, there would be a distinctive signature to indicate this. The fact is, there is none. Neither will you find lustrine deposits, indicating a freshwater lake. The mudflows at Specimen Ridge are not unique. They occurred 50 mya, from nearby Mount Wasburn. No Noah Flood evidence here.
lawilson200 4 years ago