Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hedwig · 07-13-2003, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
We don't talk like that, so why the insulting implications?

Hon, you should really check out the Talk Origins feedback section. Some of the creationist feedback on that site is enough to make your eyeballs turn inside out.

Kosh · 07-13-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ
Any advice on how to improve this phyiscal model would be appreciated.

You could try learning some basic physics and paying attention to it!

(hint: all that rain would generate a LOT of heat)

orpheus last chant · 07-14-2003, 12:20 AM

here's the stuff i got from a creationist, in response to the question - if it was a world flood how come mount ararat appeard from teh waters before all the others peaks...like himalaya:

Could the Water Have Covered Mount Everest?

Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 km) high. How, then, could the flood have covered �all the high hills under the whole heaven�?

The Bible refers only to �high hills,� and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today�s earth surface.

{Even the high mountains of today have fossils of sea creatures near their peaks. See Picture 176}

Thus, it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the United States. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. {19} Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (the Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand, and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly.

{Kata Tjuta in central Australia is composed of material which must have been deposited very quickly by water. Photo by Kevin Walmsley See Picture 177}

The erosion caused by receding flood waters is the reason that river valleys are far larger than the rivers now flowing in them could have carved. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah�s flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins.

Our understanding of how the flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm.

feel free to tare it apart....

ps418 · 07-14-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by orpheus last chant
The Bible refers only to �high hills,� and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting.

False. Mountains have been forming and convergent plate tectonics have been happening for billions of years. To take a simple example, regionally folded and metamorphosed precambrian bedrock overlain by flat, unfolder later precambrian sediments is conclusive evidence for precambrian tectonic collision. From
my page on precambrian tectonics:

Quote:

The Precambrian cratons of all continents are composed of numerous distinct terranes of different isotopic ages, structural trends, lithologies, and paleomagnetic and tectonic histories. These terranes are typically bounded by collisional orogens. Stratigraphic relationships can be used to show that North America (and the rest of Laurentia), for example, underwent an extensive tectonic evolution well before the Cambrian seas transgressed over the North American craton in the early Phanerozoic.

The North American craton is separated into seven such provinces. Examples of well studied Proterozoic orogenic foldbelts in North America include the Wopmay belt or orogen and the Trans-Hudson belt between the Wyoming and Superior crustal provinces in the northern US. A handy map of precambrian crustal provinces in the US can be seen here and here. Condie (1989) states:

"Field and geophysical data from the Canadian Shield, as well as results from boreholes in in platform sediment, indicate that North America is an amalgamation of plates, recently referred to as the 'United Plates of America' (Hoffman, 1988). The Archaean crust is composed of of at least six seperate provinces joined by early Proterozoic foldbelts. The systematic asymmetry of stratigraphic sections, structure, metamorphicism, and igneous rocks is consistent with an origin by subduction and collision. Such asymmetry is particularly well-displayed along the Trans Hudson, Labrador, and Penokean orogenic belts. In these belts, zones of foreland deformation are dominated by thrusts and recumbent folds, whereas hinterlands typically show transcurrent faults. Both features are characteristic of subduction zones. Some Proterozoic orogens have large accretionary prisms . . . " (p. 354).

Cratons, often thought of as the stable "basement," have Archaean "subcratons"(?) themselves, which are in turn surrounded by younger Proterozoic folbelts. For instance, the Yangtze craton appears to have been formed by collision/accretion processes operating during the Proterozoic (Guo et al., 1985). It consists of a late Archaean (2.86 U-Pb) nucleus to the northwest, flanked by progressively younger Proterozoic rock to the south.

Tectonically emplaced ophiolites are found at least as far back as the mid-Proterozoic, and disputed ophiolites or ophiolite analogs are found in much older Archean crustal provinces. These demonstrate the existence of spreading boundaries and plate collisions, and hence tectonic plate motion, since at least early Proterozoic (the YEC preflood) time.

"[O]phiolites occur in several Proterozoic orogenic belts and provide strong evidence of the existence of oceanic plates like those of today. The oldest is an ophiolite in the Cape Smith belt on the south side of Hudson Bay in Canada whose age has been firmly established at 1.999 billion years. There is a 1.8-billion-year-old ophiolite in the Svecofennian belt of southern Finland, but most Proterozoic ophiolites are 1 billion to 570 million years old and occur in the Pan-African belts of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and The Sudan, where they occur in sutures between a variety of island arcs".

Another line of evidence which shows that plate tectonic processes were active during the Proterozoic is based on paleomagnetic data. While much less complete than Phanerozoic data, paleomagnetic data from Proterozoic formations (such as the massive Kaweenawan basalts [Halls et al., 1982] and the Grand Canyon Supergroup [Elston et al., 1973], etc.) show the "preflood" continents moving with respect to latitude over time during the Proterozoic, at rates comparable to, though slightly faster than, those measured today (<20cm/yr). Condie states that "rates of Proterozoic plate motions can be obtained from APW paths . . . results indicate that Proterozoic continental plate velocities (3-10cm/y) often exceeded those of present-day continental plates (which average about 5cm/y) and were equivalent to those of present day oceanic plates" (p. 219). Such gradual slowing is expected due to gradual reduction in the amount of heat generated within the earth by decaying radionuclides.

A characteristic feature of Phanerozoic and Proterozoic APW paths is the presence of loops with an average periodicty of roughly 200my. In Phanerozoic APW paths, these loops can often be correlated with orogenic episodes. Several loops in Proterozoic APW paths also appear to be correlated with major orogenic episodes (1150, 1750, and 1850 in North America; 1100 and 2150 in Africa; Condie, 1989, p. 333).

For instance, the portion of the mid to late Proterozoic APWP for the North American craton constructed from the Kaweenawan basalts and the Grand Canyon Supergroup "has yielded the temporally longest, stratigraphically controlled polar path yet developed for North America (~1250) to 800Ma)", and describes a prominent "loop." P.K. Link et al. note:

"The polar path for the Unkar Group, beginning at the level of the Shinumo Quartzite and extending to the lower member of the Nankoweap Formation, overlaps and coincides with the polar path reported from lower, middle, and upper Keweenawan rocks of the Lake Superior region" (p. 479).

"The composite polar path . . . from the Unkar-Nankoweap and Kaweenawan-Chequamegon poles, shows an overlapping, concordant, nonconflicting progression of poles, and a single polar path for the two regions. The concordant north- and then south-trending paths form a single loop that is here called the Unkar- Kaweenawan loop" (p. 480).

The apex of the Unkar-Keweenawan loop appears to coincide with the end of the Grenville orogeny and the cessation of Keweenawan rifting. Mafic sills of similar age in both Unkar and Keweenawan strata appear to have been emplaced at this time as well, indicating that whatever event is indicated by the apex affected a large region of the North American Craton.

Creationist guy continues:

Quote:

In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

A simple nonsequiter. That observation in no way, shape or form supports the assertion that mountains were formed exclusively during and after Noah's Flood. The observation that Everest is composed of marine limestone, as well as GPS measurements of Everest's continued rise, shows only that such movement has continued, nothing about when such movement started or the rate and tempo of movement.

Patrick

Kosh · 07-14-2003, 05:16 PM

Ask him where those quotes were taken from? Kent Hovind, or Ken Hamm? Either way, they're both touting very bad science.

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

07-14-2003, 12:20 AM	#13
orpheus last chant Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Romania Posts: 4,975	here's the stuff i got from a creationist, in response to the question - if it was a world flood how come mount ararat appeard from teh waters before all the others peaks...like himalaya: Could the Water Have Covered Mount Everest? Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 km) high. How, then, could the flood have covered �all the high hills under the whole heaven�? The Bible refers only to �high hills,� and the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers. This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today�s earth surface. {Even the high mountains of today have fossils of sea creatures near their peaks. See Picture 176} Thus, it is not hard to envisage the rapid carving of the landscape features that we see on the earth today, including places such as the Grand Canyon of the United States. The present shape of Uluru (Ayers Rock), a sandstone monolith in central Australia, is the result of erosion, following tilting and uplift, of previously horizontal beds of water-laid sand. The feldspar-rich sand that makes up Uluru must have been deposited very quickly and recently. Long-distance transport of the sand would have caused the grains to be rounded and sorted, whereas they are jagged and unsorted. If they had sat accumulating slowly in a lake bed drying in the sun over eons of time, which is the story told in the geological display at the park center, the feldspar would have weathered into clay. Likewise, if Uluru had sat in the once-humid area of central Australia for millions of years, it would have weathered to clay. {19} Similarly, the nearby Kata Tjuta (the Olgas) are composed of an unsorted mixture of large boulders, sand, and mud, indicating that the material must have been transported and deposited very rapidly. {Kata Tjuta in central Australia is composed of material which must have been deposited very quickly by water. Photo by Kevin Walmsley See Picture 177} The erosion caused by receding flood waters is the reason that river valleys are far larger than the rivers now flowing in them could have carved. The water flow that carved out the river valleys must have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in the rivers today. This is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah�s flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins. Our understanding of how the flood could have occurred is continually developing. Ideas come and go, but the fact of the flood remains. Genesis clearly testifies to it, Jesus and the Apostles confirmed it, and there is abundant global geological evidence for a global watery cataclysm. feel free to tare it apart....

07-14-2003, 05:16 PM	#15
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Ask him where those quotes were taken from? Kent Hovind, or Ken Hamm? Either way, they're both touting very bad science.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.