Mud from rivers into the oceans

[hotfire]

this thread has sedimental value

[PLAYER57832]

No no no. You've missed the point. Its not wise to approach a hypothesis or data with a preconceived belief its wrong. That's not scientific, scientist are by definition to be open minded.

And, as many of us have pointed out.. you not only don't think scientifically, you don't seem to be open-minded enough to even recognize that fact.

[Robespierre__]

I have to say that this topic is amazing. Humans have the most incredible ability to believe what they want to believe and ignore all evidence to the contrary.

UC, Christianity is a beautiful tradition that seeks to guide and enrich people to live lives based on love and compassion. You don't need to put yourself through so much brain/logic contortion to believe in the sanctity of your religion or its seminal book. I know absolutely nothing I say will affect you since the mountain of scientific evidence to dissuade you from your young Earth beliefs has not taken root. As an intelligent person you feel the drive to base your beliefs in reason and logic which is laudable. But there is no way to ignore all of the scientific evidence without simply punting and saying God created it to look that way. You are ignoring so much archaeological evidence and clinging to this argument about 4,500 year old river basins. As a religion major, Christian, and bystander, it is kind of hard to watch.

[AndyDufresne]

Why is there only about 4,500 years worth of sediment deposits?

Breaking News -- This just in from the news desk, cat domestication may be older than rivers:
Cat Domestication Traced to Chinese Farmers 5,300 Years Ago

"Results of this study show that the village of Quanhucun [in China] was a source of food for the cats 5,300 years ago, and the relationship between humans and cats was commensal, or advantageous for the cats," Marshall said. "Even if these cats were not yet domesticated, our evidence confirms that they lived in close proximity to farmers, and that the relationship had mutual benefits."

Cat remains rarely are found in ancient archaeological sites, and little is known about how they were domesticated. Cats were thought to have first been domesticated in ancient Egypt, where they were kept some 4,000 years ago, but more recent research suggests close relations with humans may have occurred much earlier, including the discovery of a wild cat buried with a human nearly 10,000 years ago in Cyprus.

Stay tuned for more news bulletins.


--Andy

[AndyDufresne]

Now that universalchiro is Conqueror, does that mean he is right? Might makes right?!?!


--Andy

[mrswdk]

Onward Christian soldier.

Bollocks.

[sundance123]

A link to the obit of one of the mapmakers of the map in the OP
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2006/story08-24-06.php

its a shame to see her work appropriated into UC's biblecentric bullsh1t but then I would not have read about such a wonderful woman.

[mrswdk]

Now that universalchiro is Conqueror, does that mean he is right? Might makes right?!?!


--Andy

Andy called it months before the urmagedddon thread. Psychic.

[macbone]

I've probably said this before (and man, I reference him too much), but C.S. Lewis wrote that Christians need to spend more time reading scientific articles and perhaps (gasp!) less religious material.

Of course, Lewis had no problem with the theory of evolution, and found it odd that American Christians did.

[PLAYER57832]

I've probably said this before (and man, I reference him too much), but C.S. Lewis wrote that Christians need to spend more time reading scientific articles and perhaps (gasp!) less religious material.

Of course, Lewis had no problem with the theory of evolution, and found it odd that American Christians did.

MOST American Christians actually find it odd. It began as a very small movement from a fringe evangelical group. It was brought to prominance by the Institute for Creation Studies (either ICR.org or IRC.org..).

The irony is that while it has been heavily promoted as a Christian movement, the funding is heavily weighted toward conservative business and political interests, aka "the Family" and their ilk. That is why it is both so powerful and so dangerous. The real goal truly is to subvert people's understanding of science and while I have not found direct proof that they are specifically targeting pollution limits, environmental concerns, the result has very much been a speeding of the lack of understanding of how our world works.

On top of that, these groups are often linked with ideas that are in favor of subverting women (oops.. make that "protecting women" from those nasty decisions).

When you talk about cultural interactions, it gets ironically muddy. Some groups are very much into understanding other cultures, so they can "spread the word" (and I don't mean in the old style, with force, I mean making friends, talking and changing minds that way -- this does require that one actually have some understanding and definitely compassion for different peoples). Others are almost xenophobic and racist (some truly are both). Yet, they combine when it comes to certain issues.

Add in a large number of Roman Catholics who have somehow come to believe that because the Evangelicals share their views on abortion and such, the churches share views on evolution. (aided because US schools have been avoiding real discussion of evolution for some time due to the many lawsuits).

Anyway, you can consider this a bunch of crazy blurbs or you can check out the websites -- institute for Creation studies, Answers in Genesis, etc. and see for yourself. What htey put forward is very close to real science, close enough that folks NOT knowledgeable can be easily fooled into thinking it is science. That makes them more dangerous than if they were simply spouting off pure lunacy. (it is lunacy, but carefully calculated to sound real).

[universalchiro]

The argument is a two edge sword. It is equally argued that a little science can lead away from God, full science leads one back to God.

A believer has no fear of any of the sciences, for the more one understands all the sciences, the more one sees the marvel of God.

An atheist uses the same argument to support their view. Hence its a double edge sword.

[bigimg]http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/image/global_topo_large.gif[/bigimg]

If the Tectonic plates truly took 200+ million years, there would be at least one river delta that had more sedimentary deposit than 4,500 years worth. Also there would be trails of Deltas. This is a major flaw in the hypothesis that Tectonic plate movement has been traveling at the same velocity for 200 million years.

And yes it is a Hypothesis , not fact, what the velocity of Tectonic plates was in past millennia. The evidence shows there was high velocity tectonic plate movement in the beginning that has slowed to current velocity for the last 4,500 years. Additionally the evidence supports Pangaea broke apart relatively recently, around 4,500 years ago at the time of the Genesis 7 global flood.

[PLAYER57832]

The argument is a two edge sword. It is equally argued that a little science can lead away from God, full science leads one back to God.

Yes, but what you are espousing is definitely NOT science.

And, well, the one thing Christ, The Bible, God do not stand for are lies. Remember, Satan's other title is the "great deceiver".

Think about that before you start claiming that we trained scientists who are also Christians have somehow been duped by OUR OWN RESEARCH AND OBSERVATIONS

[Army of GOD]

When I read the thread title I thought this was going to be an earth science discussion.

Alas, I was wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

If the Tectonic plates truly took 200+ million years

???
You seem to be trying to speak of something intelligently, but are apparently mixing up concepts.

there would be at least one river delta that had more sedimentary deposit than 4,500 years worth. Also there would be trails of Deltas. This is a major flaw in the hypothesis that Tectonic plate movement has been traveling at the same velocity for 200 million years.

why would splitting plates, continents drifting apart have, as you claim, trails of deltas?

Besides that, there actually are many deltas and areas of both erosion and deposition.. not to mention periodic volcanic activity, aging/oxidation of stones, etc, etc.

In other words, the evidence very much does show great age.

And yes it is a Hypothesis , not fact, what the velocity of Tectonic plates was in past millennia. The evidence shows there was high velocity tectonic plate movement in the beginning that has slowed to current velocity for the last 4,500 years. Additionally the evidence supports Pangaea broke apart relatively recently, around 4,500 years ago at the time of the Genesis 7 global flood.

Uh, no it does not. The evidence shows nothing like what you are claiming. Sorry, but whomever told you this either greatly misunderstands the evidence or is plain lying... likely a bit of both.

Most of what you are trying to claim was disputed even in the Institute for Creationist studies, a definite young earth organization. (though they have framed themselves as a depository of all creationist thougth and so might have articles professing this type of thing)

[universalchiro]

You are saying I'm wrong and you cite no higher authority, nor reference evidence to authenticate your reasoning & logic. Your confidence is impressive Sergeant. We both know no one has perfect logic, nor perfect reasoning & discerning skills, so don't be so presumptuous that I'm wrong & you're are correct.

Is it impossible for me to be correct?

You think you are correct because you were taught you evolved from an Amoeba that spontaneously generated out of non-living material and now you accept this belief system and tell all non-believers they are wrong because so and so said so.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

You say I'm wrong, but its possible I'm correct.

[jonesthecurl]

No, it didn't start with an amoeba.

[universalchiro]

For once in a backwards way we agree.

[chang50]

[quote="universalchiro"]The argument is a two edge sword. It is equally argued that a little science can lead away from God, full science leads one back to God.

A believer has no fear of any of the sciences, for the more one understands all the sciences, the more one sees the marvel of God.

An atheist uses the same argument to support their view. Hence its a double edge sword.

But the atheist position makes no positive claims about anything.It is the negative claim that does not believe in the existence of god(s).As such the best evidence for atheism is the lack of evidence presented by those making the positive claim god(s) exist,theists.Nothing more is needed really.
Individual atheists might employ science,or other disciplines to debunk theistic claims of course but should not be drawn into offering alternative explainations for creation for example.The burden of proof should reside with those making the outrageously extraordinary positive claim which is completely fatuous compared to an honest 'don't know'.

[PLAYER57832]

You are saying I'm wrong and you cite no higher authority, nor reference evidence to authenticate your reasoning & logic.

lol
Well, for one thing, this is my field of study.

For another, you have been given multiple references and refused to even read them.

Your confidence is impressive Sergeant. We both know no one has perfect logic, nor perfect reasoning & discerning skills, so don't be so presumptuous that I'm wrong & you're are correct.

That would be true were our knowledge equal. It is not.

Is it impossible for me to be correct?

You think you are correct because you were taught you evolved from an Amoeba that spontaneously generated out of non-living material and now you accept this belief system and tell all non-believers they are wrong because so and so said so.

Try actually reading. You might learn something.

See, first of all I am not, as you claim a "non-believer". You are not presenting evidence within the Bible you are presenting things people who want to claim science is wrong say. That they use "its in the Bible" as an excuse does not make it valid. In fact, claiming that the Bible supports what you are saying is a pretty big lie. The Bible is not a scientific text. It barely touches on the creation, indicating that God created all (in the same order as evolution studies indicate, by-the-way).

You say I'm wrong, but its possible I'm correct.

No, it is not. Your ideas are not even supported by the Bible.

[hotfire]

apparently chiro has never heard of long-shore currents or long-shore drift...

[AndyDufresne]

You say I'm wrong, but its possible I'm correct.

It is possible Jonesthecurl has two hearts. You say I'm wrong, but its possible I'm correct.


--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

Just because I look a bit like Tom Baker doesn't mean I'm a timelord. Though I did used to have a long multi-coloured scarf. And I like jelly babies.

[universalchiro]

@ player: you amuse me. In your eyes its impossible you are wrong.lol
Sir Isaac Newton was never wrong about a theory? Lol
Okay Sergeant you're always right. Next.

@hotfire: apparently you are unaware the current at the bottom ocean floor is 1/100 the velocity at the surface on average.

The Bible describes Pangaea broke apart at the time of the global flood. Approximately 4,500 years ago. This is supported but no river delta has greater than 4,500 years of deposit & no trail of deltas remain on ocean floor as the tectonic plates moved. Evidence the tectonic plates moved quickly at theflod & has slowed to current rate to allow deltas to form.

[hotfire]

pangae wasn't even the first supercontinent...what broke the first one apart? another flood?

[AndyDufresne]

pangae wasn't even the first supercontinent...what broke the first one apart? another flood?

Those didn't exist, silly?!?!


--Andy