Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Carico, Oct 7, 2008.
Who cares what Wikipedia says?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Then it appears that no one really knows what sediment is and thus can't make any determinations about how it got there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But, the dictionary says the same thing and in fact, every definition I've seen of sediment except yours says what Wikipedia says. So again, it appears that you are the ignorant one about the rudiments of science. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
For the record sedimentary rock can be formed as particles fall out of water (flood water or standing water, doesn't matter) or air, all that matters is that they sediment be deposited and pressure brought to bear on it for long periods.
"Fluid" does not mean "liquid" in this context. All gasses are fluid.
The Caspian is known to have dried out and refilled several times in the last few mil years.
I remember something about the most recent being possibly a source of the many flood myths in various cultures, there are other land-locked freshwater seas, that are candidates. The Mediterranean used to be a lot lower, not so far back that the 'flooding' would not have become a cultural myth. We're about 100,000 years old as a species, when did we start remembering events, or recording history?
Read Wikipedia on evolution. They define every aspect of it because evolution is an accepted theory, not a proven theory. Wikipedia also defines every aspect of Christianity which scientists reject. Nevertheless, the definition of the word "sediment" remains the same in all dictionaries. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Land-locked basins in areas of periodic low rain fall often have their water surface fall. A current very minor example is Lake Powell behind Boulder Dam. When Earth is colder especially in one of the periodic ice ages, these basins may dry up completely. When they refill it is a slow process. The people living in the basin adapt by moving to higher ground and do not drown in large numbers.
The Mediterranean is a different story. It is quasi- land-locked. I.e. when large amounts of water are stored on land as ice and snow, it is land-locked or not connected to the Atlantic. As explained in post 7, when it reconnects, it can refill rapidly drowning almost all who have for have lived in it for many dozens of generations, if not hundreds of generations, and do not know that their village is below the current Atlantic Ocean level. They probably thought they were fortunate to be able to collect and sell the salt near their villages to passing caravans. Then one day they had to move away from the salt that collected in the lowest spots and set up tents on a nearby hill, which unknown to them was still below the level of the ocean, so in a month or so almost all of them drowned.
The few that survived told of the great flood - and their children retold the history, but its cause was never was understood by these ignorant people (or by some equally ignorant people posting here).
They typically ascribe the cause to an angry god same as when a volcano erupts after being long dormant etc.
Sorry, but your attacks don't refute my posts any more than they defend yours. All they show is the frustration that you can't defend your position or refute my posts. So they're a waste of time. If your arguments can't stand on their own merit, they don't stand at all. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Mediterranean bottom has several distinct salt layers from episodes of evaporation in the distant past [millions of years ago]. As I recall, the Gibraltar Falls, during episodes of refilling, lasted around a century or so.
Anyway, those periods of drying and refilling all predate human history.
The Black Sea basin however, connected to the Mediterranean, is believed to have filled in the recent past, circa 10,000 BC during the final phase of ice-age melting when the seas rose a final roughly 50 feet, breaking through and creating a separate falls [lasting roughly several years]. It is that filling which has been suggested to have given rise to a Noah story.
You should be able to google on this and find the details fairly easily.
You may be correct. I only work from memory. I thought the last icea age was only about 15 000 BP. (that is memory too.) I know that there are channels that subs use to slip in and out of the Mediterranean undetected near Gibraltar and am almost certain that the lowest parts (not in these channels) are higher than the edge of the continental shelf. Thus when the continental shelf was dry in an ice age the Med would have been cut off and made these channels by erosion, certainly with "Gibraltar Falls" where the eroding rocks were harder.
I was only guessing at the "months" time scale; it may have been few years to refill, but more than that I find hard to believe. I am not into geologic history but seem to recall that some state in the US central NW were also suddenly flooded When an "inland ocean" broke thru to a lower region. Just this spring a mere river, strong with snow melting in the Himalayas, broke thru its banks and flooded a huge lower area (>100 square miles?) in about a week; that drowned many even in this age when they could be warned. That probably caused me to sub-consciously guess it took only months to fill the Med with the Atlantic Ocean quickly cutting a deep channel for the flow. That channel may have been cut many ice ages ago, when there were no people in the dry Med basin to drown. I.e. you probably are right that it was the surge of water thru the Bosporus into the Black Sea that gave origin to the Bible's Noah story. Is not "Mt. Ararat”, where Noah's ark landed supposed to be near there?
I thought we were still IN the Ice Age Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry but God will not allow himself to be mocked. He will absolutely punish people for cursing and desecrating his creation. If he didn't, he would be a wimp and not to be revered or respected because He could be walked all over and trampled on.
However, most lawbreakers don't think they deserve to be punished. So they think that by cursing God even more for punishing them that will make Him go away. But it doesn't. It angers Him further. So instead of ignoring, denying or getting angry at God for allowing mankind to be accountable for our behavior, you would fare better to heed His warning since he is the one who created the world and He made the laws of the universe. If you don't like that, then I guess that's your tough luck because you don't run the universe. It's that simple. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Notice, it doesn't say that it requires a flood, only fluid flow, something which, here in the Pacific Northwest, is an almost daily occurrence.
And as I already said, there are only a few options for "fluid flow" to create sedimentary rock layers all over the earth. And only ONE of those options has been recounted by ancient cultures; a global flood. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It does rain on most of the planet. There is sedimentary rock all over, but it's not all the same kind of sediments. If all sedimentary rock were the same, you might have a point.
Which God are you speaking of / for?
Mine likes people to use his gifts, especially the one most advanced in humans - intelligence and power to reason.
You are running great risk by effectively "spitting in his face" and refusing to do so but perhaps your God love fools, blesses the ignorant, etc.?
There are so many Gods to choose from - it is a problem, but mine suits me better than the one you adhere to.
Baucus is a nice god too when you want to relax but it is hard to serve both at the same time.
Baucus enjoys being mocked - He is a real good sport about it at the time but can give you a nasty head ache the next morning when he is sober again.
So you're saying either that God has no sense of humor, or that He has one, but only finds things funny if it's not about Him, making him relatable, but insecure.
In any event, He also seems to be mercurial. Notice how many sinners live lives of peace and pleasure, and how many worshipful souls find themselves beset with hardships. More curiously, notice how many sinners are faced with hardships and how many faithful live lives of happiness. And the people who are neither especially sinful nor especially devout seem to get both in the same proportion. To the casual observer armed solely with his eyes and the tools of statistical analysis, it seems one's religion and religiosity are minor factors in determining how happy you'll be.
The religious are, to be sure, happier than the non-religious (though whether the link is causal or correlational is debated), but the research suggests that it doesn't matter what religion. Even non-theistic religions give the same effect. So if God is bestowing his grace, he is spilling it on everyone involved in any sort of religious service equally, including the Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, etc.
There's also that Pahnke "Good Friday" experiment...a researcher named Walter Pahnke conducted an experiment in which he chemically induced a religious experience in people. On a Good Friday, the subjects, theology students, came to meditate in a church for several hours. Each was given either a placebo or psilocybin. The ones who received the real drug reported intense religious experiences, of course. Their levels of happiness proved to be significantly greater than that of the control group, and the effects remained for more than six months after the experiment—the psilocybin group consistently reported that their attitudes were changed for the better (and happier) than did the placebo group.
So I am skeptical of the claim that God is making distinctions among the followers. It seems that even artificial religious experiences may explain the difference in levels of reported happiness or in punishments received. God, if He exists, is an equal opportunity smiter and bestower of gifts. Claiming otherwise reminds me of the religious uproar that Ben Franklin caused with the lightning rod. One school of thought condemned Franklin because God was revealed through lightning. The more dominant school of thought believed that lightning was the tool of the Devil (the "Prince of the Power of the Air"), to be chased away from homes by faith, not by scientific gadgetry.
Reverend Thomas Prince blamed Franklin's lightning rod for a 1755 earthquake that hit Boston (where, he figured, there were more of the devilish rods than anywhere else, so of course God's wrath was directed there). John Adams also spoke out against them on religious grounds, comparing them to the presumption of Peter trying to walk on water and decrying Franklin's impiously "attempting to control the artillery of heaven."
It is a strange God who is threatened by the private actions and statements of the men and women He created. Just as strange as One threatened by Franklin's iron rods.
You will get no where with him by reason. - He has already demonstrated great immunity to that. Try mocking as I did - at least it is fun.
The people who study sedimentary rock have a pretty good handle on what it is, and how particular examples got where they are.
Often, by wind deposition.
Again, how do they know except by guessing? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The answer is they can't know. So guessing is as much of a handle as chasing after the wind. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just because you're ignorant and undereducated doesn't imply that others aren't knowledgeable or that they don't or can't understand.
Yours is a position that is to be either pitied or ridiculed.
Separate names with a comma.