Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Occam's Aftershave · 08-03-2007, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I do understand how sandstone forms, but I do not understand how limestone forms. Have not studied it.

Then why not spend the 15 seconds it would take to Google it, or look it up in your Encyclopaedia Britannica Dave? Isn't that the primary source for your info that you've been quoting for the last year and a half?

Oh sorry, I forgot that you're the laziest turd on the planet who would rather die of terminal ignorance rather that walk across the room to educate yourself.

08-03-2007, 10:29 PM

Here's one paper I found quickly.
Dave, try reading the first paragraph at the top of page 3.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

The search results were here:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...G=Search&meta=

Have fun, Dave.

Pappy Jack · 08-03-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

MB ... I have yet to study your pictures in detail, but I did read your latest post. Do you realize that we YECs propose not just a flood with rain, but a humungous tectonic, hydraulic and volcanic cataclysm which completely resurfaced the entire globe? So I'm having a hard time understanding how you know that there used to be a massive salty desert where the Med is now.

....thereby eliminating (or at least completely covering) that 1-2 mile layer of Flud sediment that we're still waiting to be shown.

And how do you explain the survival of the Flud survivors amidst all this cataclysmic volcanic and tectonic activity?

And what about extant impact craters? They all must have happened after all this cataclysmic activity?

Dave, what a crock of sh*t!

08-04-2007, 12:04 AM

PJ, when Dave says "completely resurfaced" I think he means "except for the bits that weren't", which would include the impact craters that according to him all date to the initial few days of the Flud. This, of course, explains why they are not covered by the global layer of sediment.

Edit: Incidentally here's a page which among other things shows four impact craters in Libya just outside the border with Egypt.
Target rock in all cases is sedimentary, which is hard to explain by Dave's theory of all the major impacts being in the early days of the Flud. Needless to say they're all dated to well in excess of 6,000 years.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/africa.html

Pappy Jack · 08-04-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

PJ, when Dave says "completely resurfaced" I think he means "except for the bits that weren't", which would include the impact craters that according to him all date to the initial few days of the Flud. This, of course, explains why they are not covered by the global layer of sediment.

MB, that crock just gets bigger an' more aromatic every day! :Cheeky:

PS Yes, I've checked out that impact database before - makes you wonder how Dave can cope with all the cognitive dissonance that must be going on inside his head.....

BWE · 08-04-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I do understand how sandstone forms, but I do not understand how limestone forms. Have not studied it.

Then why not spend the 15 seconds it would take to Google it, or look it up in your Encyclopaedia Britannica Dave? Isn't that the primary source for your info that you've been quoting for the last year and a half?

Oh sorry, I forgot that you're the laziest turd on the planet who would rather die of terminal ignorance rather that walk across the room to educate yourself.

Jesus F. Christ. I didn't read the past pages so I'm quoting OA rather than dave. Dave, I can only imagine how you justify this sentence. I'm wondering... limestone... age of Earth(May we honor her with our bodies when we die)...limestone... age of ... sheesh.

I mean... Come on. That is one of the less intelligent things someone might say. I'm contemplating not being nice to you in our dendrochronology debate. You owe some people an apology.

BWE · 08-04-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Messge to afdave: Did you read my post #739? I domolished your arguments with lots of credible evidence from well-documented sources.

Did you domolish [sic] my arguments? Or did you C&P from your favorite "Evolution Apologetics" source? I am interested in hearing people's actual arguments (their own that is) not in C&P stuff that you may not even understand.

A good example of someone here who uses his own arguments is Dean Anderson. He and I had a good exchange on this thread recently. This is what I have been urging Pappy Jack to do also with his pyramid slope arguments.

Ahhhhhggk!@#^*

My brains are leaking onto my keyboard.

Dave Hawkins · 08-04-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

You haven't had time to study the pictures in detail?
Dave, I'd studied them in detail after I'd spent thirty seconds looking at each one. There really isn't that much information to assimilate.

As for your cataclysm, of course I know your views. Resurfacing is precisely my point.
The surface of Egypt as we know it didn't exist when the canyon was cut.
You have to explain how it was cut and how it got filled in again.

It is eroded through bedrock, Dave. At Aswan the bedrock is granite, which apart from being as hard as buggery is, of course, igneous rock. It would have taken a long, long time to erode. Then it had to fill with sediment. First marine sediment and then freshwater sediment.

To take just one little point, you claim no volcanism before your Flud so how was the canyon eroded into volcanic rock?

So the two 'problems' you are throwing at me are erosion through bedrock and then the subsequent infilling? First, erosion through bedrock is easy with catastrophic water flows. Long, long times are not needed. You should have learned that from studying the Palouse Canyon.

As for the infilling with first marine, then freshwater sediment ... I haven't given this a lot of thought yet, but it seems like the marine sediment would have been deposited during the Flood and the freshwater would be post-Flood.

As for the volcanism, I don't know if there were volcanoes prior to the Flood, but there certainly were lots of them at the beginning of the Flood and probably during it and after it.

What's so hard about all this? Is there some problem I'm not seeing?

Now some wise guy will pop up and say "but you can't prove that." True, but you can 'prove' anything in past history. We've been through that exercise. But you can make reasonable inferences from the circumstantial evidence, which is precisely what was done in the "English Channel Megaflood" article.

Dave Hawkins · 08-04-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mung bean

PJ, when Dave says "completely resurfaced" I think he means "except for the bits that weren't", which would include the impact craters that according to him all date to the initial few days of the Flud. This, of course, explains why they are not covered by the global layer of sediment.

Edit: Incidentally here's a page which among other things shows four impact craters in Libya just outside the border with Egypt.
Target rock in all cases is sedimentary, which is hard to explain by Dave's theory of all the major impacts being in the early days of the Flud. Needless to say they're all dated to well in excess of 6,000 years.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/africa.html

My opinion is that many impact craters occurred during the Receding Phase of the Flood after most sediments were already deposited.

BWE · 08-04-2007, 04:13 AM

Jesus Dave, your head has made some kind of a Mandelbrot set as it went up your ass and came back out your ear.
1. Ask yourself... How deep is the marine sediment...
- how is it sorted...
- what is the composition of that sediment.
- What kind of Igneous rock is it? Does granite pop out of volcvanoes?
-What is Granite?

2.How deep is the freshwater sediment?
... my brains are leaking again. It's a result of trying to give you credit for being possibly honest. I've got to go now.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2007, 10:29 PM	#792
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	Here's one paper I found quickly. Dave, try reading the first paragraph at the top of page 3. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a The search results were here: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...G=Search&meta= Have fun, Dave.

08-04-2007, 12:04 AM	#794
mung bean Guest Posts: n/a	PJ, when Dave says "completely resurfaced" I think he means "except for the bits that weren't", which would include the impact craters that according to him all date to the initial few days of the Flud. This, of course, explains why they are not covered by the global layer of sediment. Edit: Incidentally here's a page which among other things shows four impact craters in Libya just outside the border with Egypt. Target rock in all cases is sedimentary, which is hard to explain by Dave's theory of all the major impacts being in the early days of the Flud. Needless to say they're all dated to well in excess of 6,000 years. http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/africa.html

08-04-2007, 04:13 AM	#800
BWE Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 624	Jesus Dave, your head has made some kind of a Mandelbrot set as it went up your ass and came back out your ear. 1. Ask yourself... How deep is the marine sediment... - how is it sorted... - what is the composition of that sediment. - What kind of Igneous rock is it? Does granite pop out of volcvanoes? -What is Granite? 2.How deep is the freshwater sediment? ... my brains are leaking again. It's a result of trying to give you credit for being possibly honest. I've got to go now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.