Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

Some Are Wrong on Babel · And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood · Extracting a Dialogue from Previous

XI

dialogue - when I saw on a word document, that with it the document of text from previous post had 3326 words, 10 pages, and without it only 1250 words, 4 pages, I figured it could be a post of its own, this dialogue.

Matt Holton

I am endlessly amazed by videos that try to persuade people that the biblical flood myth actually happened. There are endless proofs showing that the flood story is just a myth. I offer just one here but can offer many more if needed. If you cover the earth 6 miles deep in salt water for a year, what happens to the plant life?, indeed to the whole biosphere? When the water magically disappeared (to where?) the occupants of the ark would all have soon died when they found themselves on an earth that could no longer support animal life.

Dee Lee

6 miles deep?

The highest hill, which may have been only a few hundred feet high (or less - nobody knows) was covered by 15 cubits of water. That's about 22ft. And it would have been fresh water.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In fact, the one way for Noah to know if the very highest hill was covered by 15 cubits of water would have been to know the Ark had a 15 cubits water line and having built it on that hill.

Matt Holton

Dee Lee Don't you believe the Bible version then? You think it was a very small local flood?

teddansonLA

Dee Lee Everest is almost 9000 meters above the sea level, which is about 5.5 miles - call it six miles. And Everest has been this tall for all of human history. So yes, 6 miles deep - please explain the flood without having to make even more ludicrous claims like Everest grew 9000 meters in some short time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Both Matt Holton and teddansonLA seem to have a problem grasping what Creationists are actually saying.

LA is somewhat better.

"without having to make even more ludicrous claims like Everest grew 9000 meters in some short time."

If the mountain was FOLDED while the sediments were still WET, it can have risen very high very quick - along with all the rest of the Himalayas (dito Alps, Andes and probably some more too).

Matt Holton

Hans-Georg Lundahl , I think you must be smoking something. The Himalayas are not sedimentary. They are upthrust mountains caused by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates. The earths crust is vastly thicker all through the collision zone and that zone is thousands of miles long. Folded? really? The collision process started millions of years ago and is continuing to this day. I think Creationists should try reading some science books to find out the very obvious, straightforward and well understood reasons why their beliefs are ludicrous.

teddansonLA

Hans-Georg Lundahl No, there is no problem grasping what creationism says. Essentially, creationism is saying that the Bible is completely correct and should be accepted without question. In this case it means attempting to fit the geologic history of the earth into a biblical timescale, which includes mountain building - a process which takes of order 10 - 100 million years - clearly the facts of science are not compatible with creationism.

If the mountain was FOLDED while the sediments were still WET, it can have risen very high very quick - along with all the rest of the Himalayas

Nonsense. You've got to cram 65 million years of mountain building into a few years and the rocks being wet will not do that. Any undergraduate textbook on geology will help you understand what science says.

And while you're at it, explain the presence of marine fossils and the lack of mammalian fossil on top of Everest. After all, if the flood covered the whole earth, then you'd expect all fossils to be deposited on Everest, right? So you'll need to explain why there are trilobite fossils up there but no rabbit fossils.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[to teddansonLA]

"In this case it means attempting to fit the geologic history of the earth into a biblical timescale, which includes mountain building - a process which takes of order 10 - 100 million years - clearly the facts of science are not compatible with creationism."

Clearly we have not seen the 10 - 100 million years in direct observation.

You should reformulate to "clearly certain theories of science are not compatible with creationism". Which I obviously endorse.

"And while you're at it, explain the presence of marine fossils and the lack of mammalian fossil on top of Everest. After all, if the flood covered the whole earth, then you'd expect all fossils to be deposited on Everest, right? So you'll need to explain why there are trilobite fossils up there but no rabbit fossils."

Mt Everest like Bonaparte Basin was sea in pre-Flood times.

Vienna was sea shore. You find a whale in one place and a seal in another one.

Against creationist arguing these could have been dragged any number of miles, since so much débris was under flood, I submit, if they had been, they would not have arrived as identifiable fossils, but as bone crush powder.

So, Vienna was sea shore. This opens for Danube to have been floating other way from Dobrugea to Vienna, since Black Sea Flood happened in post-Babel times, and this means, Danube and Euphrates riverbeds could have been one river Frat but floating NW instead of as now both of them SE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

[to Matt Holton]

"The Himalayas are not sedimentary. They are upthrust mountains"

Upthrust would mean original sediments have been deformed by an upthrust, right?

In the triple classification of sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic, I suppose this makes them metamorphic.

"They are upthrust mountains caused by the collision of the Indian and Asian plates."

A collision which helped drain off water from the then still muddy Himalayas, I presume.

You know, if you want fresh cheese to dry, it helps to get it into a more vertical mold (I've done cheese making). This was in this case accomplished by such folding or upthrust of two plates.

As to the exact shade of meaning between upthrust and folded, that is beyond my own level of amateur geology.

"The collision process started millions of years ago and is continuing to this day."

Ah, so your level of amateur geo-history starts out with the process taking place at about same speed all through ... we'd of course extrapolate from that and say it happened faster.

Matt Holton

Hans-Georg Lundahl You need to read some real science, some real geology, your ignorance is astonishing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look here, I am a few days past fifty ... the brazen boldness of men thinking they are to mentor me is what I find astonishing.

Did you even have time to read through my points?

teddansonLA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Clearly we have not seen the 10 - 100 million years in direct observation

Why would one need to see anything in "direct observation"? Science is not limited in this way - fortunately. In anycase, we can directly measure the ratios of radio-isotopes in certain kinds of rocks and determine ages very effectively.

You should reformulate to "clearly certain theories of science are not compatible with creationism".

No, I think the plainer, and more accurate way of stating it I have already written. Creationism is incompatible with science.

Mt Everest like Bonaparte Basin was sea in pre-Flood times.

Not 4000 years ago it wasn't. And more to the point, I want an explanation for the fossils that are found there, not a vague "it was once sea" statements.

You find a whale in one place and a seal in another one

And never a whale and a plesiosaur in the same place. That's the point.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Ah, so your level of amateur geo-history starts out with the process taking place at about same speed all through

He hasn't said anything of the sort. And go easy on the "amateur" disparagement: you are trying to say mountain building is like cheese making below, so you should realise you are in no position to mock others.

we'd of course extrapolate from that and say it happened faster.

You need it to be about 100,000 times faster (at least, since you are not actually saying how fast you think the mountains were built - but I assume you mean on a scale of 100s of years, instead of the correct value which is 10-100 million years.).

You know, if you want fresh cheese to dry, it helps to get it into a more vertical mold. This was in this case accomplished by such folding or upthrust of two plates.

The Himalayas are not made of cheese - so lets dispense with the irrelevant nonsense please.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Did you even have time to read through my points?

Yes, I took the required seconds to read your posts. How about before you post in response, you learn the science?

the brazen boldness of men thinking they are to mentor me

Nobody is here to mentor you. You made statements that were wrong, they got corrected, that is all. You should at least acknowledge this.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Why would one need to see anything in "direct observation"?"

Well, whatever you have indirect evidence for would imply you have direct evidence for something else, so, at least some things you need direct observation for.

"In anycase, we can directly measure the ratios of radio-isotopes in certain kinds of rocks and determine ages very effectively."

Unless of course the ration of Argon to Potassium in lava can be affected by how quickly the lava cools and solidifies, trapping excess argon, which is affected by temperature (some lava formed under water in currents) ...

"No, I think the plainer, and more accurate way of stating it I have already written. Creationism is incompatible with science."

With your ideology of it.

"Not 4000 years ago it wasn't. And more to the point, I want an explanation for the fossils that are found there, not a vague "it was once sea" statements."

Your scientists were also not there looking 5000 years ago (I presume you referred to the Flood date, which I take as closer to 5000 than to 4500).

"And never a whale and a plesiosaur in the same place. That's the point."

You said "place" and not "layer"? Indeed, it is a point. It suggests while whales and plesiosaurs could both have swam above trilobites in pre-Flood times, they did not like swimming close to each other.

"He hasn't said anything of the sort."

Well, I think it was you who said sth about cramming so many millions of years into a short space ...

"And go easy on the "amateur" disparagement: you are trying to say mountain building is like cheese making below, so you should realise you are in no position to mock others."

Not quite always, but for those built by upthrust and or folding after Flood, I think there is a parallel. Like porosity and verticality and like things drying and solidifying better if liquids drain off first.

"You need it to be about 100,000 times faster (at least, since you are not actually saying how fast you think the mountains were built - but I assume you mean on a scale of 100s of years, instead of the correct value which is 10-100 million years.)."

That will do.

Probably ridiculous if stones had already hardened, but less so if there was more like mostly still soft mud.

"The Himalayas are not made of cheese - so lets dispense with the irrelevant nonsense please."

I think mud and fresh cheese have in common the property of a big content in H2O, and therefore I also think they have in common certain properties on how this is best eliminated.

"Yes, I took the required seconds to read your posts. How about before you post in response, you learn the science?"

Are you Matt Holton?

"Nobody is here to mentor you."

Did you read Matt Holton saying this? Here: "You need to read some real science, some real geology, your ignorance is astonishing."

I think that was an inappropriate tone to someone 50 years old.

"You made statements that were wrong, they got corrected, that is all. You should at least acknowledge this."

Read through the debate again, if you think that! Here it is, under XII on this link you find our debate:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : And Others Are Also Wrong on Babel and on Flood
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/and-others-are-also-wrong-on-babel-and.html

Sorry, under XI and above XII.

Sorry again, now it is a new post:

[linking here]