Freethought & Rationalism Archive

l-bow · 07-21-2003, 09:21 PM

The guy argues that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a short, using St. Helens as an example. Joe Meert, this might interest you.

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...37#post2563737

roxrkool · 07-21-2003, 09:38 PM

Quote:

But you can argue plate tectonics all you want to. As far as theories go, it's no more likely or far-fetched than global flooding. Wanna say the Grand Canyon was carved over billions of years? Fine. Mt. St. Helens showed that with significant mass and force, similar erosion can happen in a much shorter time.

God I hate that analogy!!!! (Are atheists allowed to say God??LOL)

Too bad Mt. Saint Helens' sediments were basically unconsolidated not solid ROCK like the Grand Canyon.

Steve Austin should be tarred and feathered for writing such an ignorant piece of crap *paper* - and him a Ph.D. geologist. :banghead:

Too bad schools can't take away degrees granted...

Valentine Pontifex · 07-21-2003, 11:07 PM

A brief reply to Mt. St. Helens stuff is

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581_1.html

l-bow · 07-22-2003, 06:09 AM

What about this one:

"Wanna argue that all stars are moving away from each other (big bang), and the blue shift proves it? Then accept the fact that the gravitational pull of those same stars also would cause a blue shift on every single one."

Jimmy Higgins · 07-22-2003, 06:17 AM

That's a new one. I didn't know it took "billions" of years to carve the Grand Canyon.

CX · 07-22-2003, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
What about this one:

"Wanna argue that all stars are moving away from each other (big bang), and the blue shift proves it? Then accept the fact that the gravitational pull of those same stars also would cause a blue shift on every single one."

Uh...I thought a red shift occured when something was moving away from a particular point of reference.

Jack the Bodiless · 07-22-2003, 07:03 AM

Yep, redshift. And this bozo is missing the most important points:

1. All stars in the same galaxy have approximately the same redshift. Differences in redshift correlate to the actual movements of stars within the galaxy, including the galaxy's rotation. Would he care to explain why all the stars on one side of a typical galaxy have a "higher gravity" than on the other side?

2. The redshifts of galaxies get bigger with increasing distance. Why are distant galaxies more massive than nearby ones?

3. The redshifts are FAR too big to be caused by gravitation. Can he explain why all these super-massive stars haven't blown up or imploded into black holes?

roxrkool · 07-22-2003, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
That's a new one. I didn't know it took "billions" of years to carve the Grand Canyon.

It's pretty obvious that bozo doesn't know a thing about what even the Creationists are saying.

ps418 · 07-22-2003, 07:40 AM

Other than making people laugh at the scientific illiteracy of others, flood geology is not "good" for anything. Its certainly not very good for explaining the geology of earth.

The Grand Canyon- Mt St Helens analogy is a good example of flood geology science. There is some good information in this talk.origins thread.

Patrick

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 07-22-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by l-bow
What about this one:

"Wanna argue that all stars are moving away from each other (big bang), and the blue shift proves it? Then accept the fact that the gravitational pull of those same stars also would cause a blue shift on every single one."

This guy obviously has never seen a physiscs textbook in his life. First, as has already been mentioned, it's redshift that we're concerned with. Secondly, gravitational redshift is virtually non-existant except in cases of near-passes to the event horizon of black holes. Our sun, for instance, does not redshift any of the light coming from it to any degree that we can measure.

07-21-2003, 09:21 PM	#1
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	flood geology just as good as plate tectonics??? The guy argues that the Grand Canyon could have been formed in a short, using St. Helens as an example. Joe Meert, this might interest you. http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...37#post2563737

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

07-21-2003, 11:07 PM	#3
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	A brief reply to Mt. St. Helens stuff is http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CH/CH581_1.html

07-22-2003, 06:09 AM	#4
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	What about this one: "Wanna argue that all stars are moving away from each other (big bang), and the blue shift proves it? Then accept the fact that the gravitational pull of those same stars also would cause a blue shift on every single one."

07-22-2003, 06:17 AM	#5
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	That's a new one. I didn't know it took "billions" of years to carve the Grand Canyon.

07-22-2003, 07:03 AM	#7
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Yep, redshift. And this bozo is missing the most important points: 1. All stars in the same galaxy have approximately the same redshift. Differences in redshift correlate to the actual movements of stars within the galaxy, including the galaxy's rotation. Would he care to explain why all the stars on one side of a typical galaxy have a "higher gravity" than on the other side? 2. The redshifts of galaxies get bigger with increasing distance. Why are distant galaxies more massive than nearby ones? 3. The redshifts are FAR too big to be caused by gravitation. Can he explain why all these super-massive stars haven't blown up or imploded into black holes?

07-22-2003, 07:40 AM	#9
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Other than making people laugh at the scientific illiteracy of others, flood geology is not "good" for anything. Its certainly not very good for explaining the geology of earth. The Grand Canyon- Mt St Helens analogy is a good example of flood geology science. There is some good information in this talk.origins thread. Patrick

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.