Steven Avery

Hi Jack,

Are you saying that it is a simple "fact" that plate tectonics accounts
for moving masses of marine-fossil rocks in neat layered beds up 3-4-5
miles from some earlier conjectured layered fossil beds? Please share
with us the components that make this a "fact" rather than a theory.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Paul2

RED DAVE said
It shouldn't take you a month of reading new material to find a date at which the entire egyptian civilization was wiped out, and then find where it was reconstructed.

hint: it's a trick question, because it never happened.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, praxeus, it is a simple fact that plate tectonics has moved entire continents thousands of miles horizontally, and raised major mountain ranges miles vertically. The Himalayas are a good example: pushed up from coastal rocks when India collided with Asia. We can measure the fact that India is still heading northwards, and that the Himalayas are still rising.

Steven Avery

Again.

Please share with us the components that make this a
"fact" rather than a theory.

e.g. how much movement upward has actually been observed? And what the indications and evidences that such movement would retain layered beds of fossils. And why such beds would predominate with marine fossils.

And, perhaps most importantly, an analysis of the physical forces involved in pushing up millions of tons of earth miles.

And a bit more.

What is the best model for when continents 'collide' ?
Can continents dance and move like bumper cars and
collide this way and that ?

And -

What continental collisions are predicted for the future ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE

<edit>
Why don't you just answer my question instead of bullshitting?

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Thank you for the IIDB rule reference.

If you really want to continue the particular discussion (in the manner
and time that I have already indicated) you would do better to drop the vulgarity. And the cult accusation is offensive and also causes me to question your dialog sincerity.

The topic itself is fine and legit and fascinating, however your problems in posting and dialog and comprehension tend to dominate.

Shalom,
Steven

RED DAVE

From praxeus:
You're welcome.

From praxeus:
Only you can determine the "manner and time" of your participation. However, the rest of us have the right to draw conclusions about your "rules" and timing. As to vulgarity, if you can't stand the heat ... . This is not an intellectual daycare center.

From praxeus:
I've expressed my opinion. Questioning my sincerity is a pretty crude way of ducking the question.

From praxeus:
And I think that your dilly-dallying is the problem.

So, still waiting.

RED DAVE

Amaleq13

Please stick to BC&H subject matter and keep efforts to improve members' science knowledge in S&S.

Thanks in advance,

Doug aka Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

spin

Red Dave asked praxeus the following questions:
I tried to help praxeus well over two weeks ago with the basic biblical data (here) necessary for him to check as a starter for him to answer Red Dave's questions. It's interesting that praxeus will respond to almost anything but these relatively simple questions. He's quibbled about fossils and plate tectonics, but Red Dave's questions go unanswered, despite the fact that Red Dave has presented them for praxeus quite frequently. I guess it doesn't matter how many times they are posted, praxeus apparently intends not to answer them, despite the data being freely available in the bible. All he has to do is look at the references and do the checking and decide whether the data available supplies a date for the year of the flood or not.

I'd think that his reticence has nothing to do with any arithmetical challenge he may have and, as he usually is not adverse to championing even the most questionable readings in the bible, I can only conclude that he has the awareness that there is something not quite kosher in the biblical information and that he is ashamed to present the biblical data. His weeks of stalling haven't provided him with any avenue around the issue.

As this appears to be the case, I'd recommend to other posters not to confuse him with any extra things to think about, so as to allow him the tranquility to look hard and long at the data and bring himself to respond to Red Dave's questions.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi spin,

You might take the time to actually read posts 71 & 84 before posting.
Only takes a minute to find, it's not such a long thread.

Then, why posting the same questions a couple of times each
day is consequent (rather than simply posturing) becomes the
real question.

Shalom,
Steven Avery