Unanswered Questions

[he_who_is_nobody]

This thread is for questions to creationists that have gone unanswered. Everyone is welcome to post the questions that have gone largely ignored by the creationists.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

How about something more rocky? I think most every rock formation brings great evidence that it was formed rapidly.

Explain how this was formed rapidly.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? How does that fit into your understanding of geology? YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that 14C can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? If you truly believe that we have original biological material from these fossils, than why settle for protein when you can just go for the DNA that should be in it? Can you define evolution in its biological context?

DepricatedZero[/url]"]So which is it here? Do you accept that the biofilms might have preserved the original material, offering an explanation, or not?

Inferno[/url]"]

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

How does that fit with your creationism, Bob and TheOnlyThing2Fear and YesYouNeedJesus? Booyakasha!

Inferno[/url]"]Given that I sent you the paper, what do you say now that both Isoletus and I have furnished you with an answer? What do you say about the paper? I'm currently at another computer, but I believe it's figure 2 where the newly dated ages are. Now that you know that they propose a maximum difference of 230 million years and now that you know that later papers corrected for that and again honed in on 4.55GY, what do you say about the age of the earth? How old is the earth?

AronRa[/url]"]Then show me where the Bible says that Jesus was wrong in Matthew 12:31-32. Show me where the Bible says that unbelievers can be allowed into Heaven.

Rando[/url]"]And when he does pop up we have some new questions he can ignore. Why do you still continue to use arguments that you have know for at least a month before the debate with AronRa, are flat out wrong? Why do you continue to use dishonest questions that we can PROVE you know the responses to? Why then do you insist that we should take you seriously knowing that you are this dishonest?. And in case he tries to deny it here's that proof again: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/09/26/bob-enyart-and-will-duffy-partners-in-idiocy/

It would be funny if from this point forward every time Will complains about the way he gets treated here we post this again and ask him to defend his dishonesty. You don't have to actually do it, but it would be funny.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

And Bob was right that Aron's claims about genetics were false, members of LoR acknowledged

Besides the fact that BobEnyart was completely wrong about everything he said when it came to genetics and that AronRa was able to point this out back in the original thread, what members acknowledged that BobEnyart was right and AronRa was wrong? I would like to see some quotes for this accusation.

EDIT1: Added new questions.
EDIT2: Added new questions.
EDIT3: Removed a duplicate question and add a new one.

 

[Stripe]

Explain how this was formed rapidly.

1. Lots of water and lots of sediment.
2. A massive compression event.
3. Lots more water and sediment.
4. A bit of time for lithification.
5. A sudden release of water to cart a whole lot of the new rock away.

All up? About 7-800 years. 97% of that in step 4.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Explain how this was formed rapidly.

1. Lots of water and lots of sediment.
2. A massive compression event.
3. Lots more water and sediment.
4. A bit of time for lithification.
5. A sudden release of water to cart a whole lot of the new rock away.

All up? About 7-800 years. 97% of that in step 4.

This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation. Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed? Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.

Please try again.

 

[Stripe]

This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation.

Sure, it does. Have you not heard that even limestone forms under water?

Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed?

One is a wholly biological process, one is a mostly non-biological process.

Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.

A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?

Please try again.

Please give ideas you haven't come across before a chance before arbitrarily dismissing them.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?

But they are not deformed, are you seriously sugesting that all those different types of sediments were made out of 1 or 3 events at most?

And how do you reconcile with this:

EDIT: Had to get a new picture because original source was removed.

 

[Stripe]

But they are not deformed

They weren't deposited on that angle, that's for sure!

are you seriously sugesting that all those different types of sediments were made out of 1 or 3 events at most?

Made? All by one event that lasted about a year.

And how do you reconcile with this:

Part 5.

 

[scalyblue]

1. Lots of water and lots of sediment.
2. A massive compression event.
3. Lots more water and sediment.
4. A bit of time for lithification.
5. A sudden release of water to cart a whole lot of the new rock away.

All up? About 7-800 years. 97% of that in step 4.

1. where is the water now? where did the sediment come from?

2. how was the event so massive it could compress so quickly, yet not melt the material

3. where is the water now? where is the sediment now?

4. define lithification

5. Away to where? Where is the new rock now? Show me where it is on a map.

You are aware that the grand canyon area has been inhabited by at least passers-through for at least the past ten thousand years or so; I believe those native american tribes were quite curious about world being created while they made their baskets and made homes in the canyon walls.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

They weren't deposited on that angle, that's for sure!

I agree.
So that excludes this:

All by one event that lasted about a year.

Even if you haven't conceeded that, this:

All by one event that lasted about a year.

Would still be absurd because there is no method of sorting that would do that in 1 go.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation.

Sure, it does. Have you not heard that even limestone forms under water?

Of course they form under water, but how do they form?

Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed?

One is a wholly biological process, one is a mostly non-biological process.

Again, how do they form under water?

Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.

A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?

:lol:

This is why people laugh at creationists. The angular-unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is not a deformation of the rocks. It is an uplift of the rocks on one side and an erosion of the sediment to a flatten state before the new sedimentary rocks were laid down upon it. I thought you claimed to be a geophysicist? I do not see how anyone can get out of undergraduate before learning this.

Please try again.

Please give ideas you haven't come across before a chance before arbitrarily dismissing them.

As I have pointed out above, I did not arbitrarily dismiss your ideas. Once you tell us how limestone and shell are formed, it will be apparent to anyone that I did not arbitrarily dismiss those ideas. Furthermore, your laughable statement about an angular-unconformity being a deformation of rocks can only be held up as a shining example of creationist stupidity.

 

[Stripe]

Of course they form under water, but how do they form?

First you need carbonate rich water, then you need to remove the water.

:lolThis is why people laugh at creationists. The angular-unconformity at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is not a deformation of the rocks. It is an uplift of the rocks on one side and an erosion of the sediment to a flatten state before the new sedimentary rocks were laid down upon it. I thought you claimed to be a geophysicist? I do not see how anyone can get out of undergraduate before learning this.

:lol: This is why creationists laugh at atheists. Always referring to outdated ideas. The peneplain hypothesis is bunk.

1. where is the water now? where did the sediment come from?

In a few big holes.

2. how was the event so massive it could compress so quickly, yet not melt the material

See the metamorphic rock? That melted a little. The rest wasn't exposed to much pressure. The seds just rode atop.

4. define lithification

Same thing that happens when you remove water from cement.

5. Away to where? Where is the new rock now? Show me where it is on a map.

Good question? If the canyon was carved over millions of years, shouldn't there be a great big delta? It isn't there. The delta on the Colorado where it hits the sea is tiny. But check out the floor of the Gulf!

You are aware that the grand canyon area has been inhabited by at least passers-through for at least the past ten thousand years or so; I believe those native american tribes were quite curious about world being created while they made their baskets and made homes in the canyon walls.

And, oh, the tales they tell.

As I have pointed out above, I did not arbitrarily dismiss your ideas.

Sure you did.

I agree.

Great!

... there is no method of sorting that would do that in 1 go.

Sure, there is. And it's something easily tested in the lab. Take a large drum and fill it with seds. Invoke a vertical flow of water through the layer. Ie. attach a pipe to the bottom of the drum and raise and lower the water source to repeatedly fill and empty the drum. Watch the layers evolve.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Good question? If the canyon was carved over millions of years, shouldn't there be a great big delta? It isn't there. The delta on the Colorado where it hits the sea is tiny. But check out the floor of the Gulf!

Damn those Dams!!!!!!

:facepalm:

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Why did you mix Master_Ghost_Knight's posts with mine? Was that necessary?

First you need carbonate rich water, then you need to remove the water.

Now please explain where this carbonate water came from and where it went when the sandstones and shale was being formed. You also conveniently forgot to explain how shale was formed. You also do not seem to understand that we see limestone on top of sandstone, which is intern on top of shale. You are also forgetting the basalts found under the Great Unconformity. How do you explain all of that?

This is why creationists laugh at atheists. Always referring to outdated ideas. The peneplain hypothesis is bunk.

I do not remember ever claiming that the unconformity was caused by fluvial erosion, now did I? However, it would be interesting if you could cite a source for this claim. Again, you have not explained why the sedimentary rocks look like that under the Great Unconformity. Please explain the angle of the sedimentary and volcanic rocks seen there.

As I have pointed out above, I did not arbitrarily dismiss your ideas.

Sure you did.

The only one dismissing ideas is yourself by refusing to fully answer questions. This thread was started in order for you to stop dodging and be straightforward. You do realize that the questions I am asking require more than a single sentence response, correct? Please let us have your answers to the questions. If this does not change, I do not see a point in wasting any more time on such an obvious troll.

 

[Stripe]

Why did you mix Master_Ghost_Knight's posts with mine? Was that necessary?

Uh .. It was unintentional, I assure you. :?

But you do all look the same to me.

Now please explain where this carbonate water came from and where it went when the sandstones and shale was being formed.

It came from a lot of hot water dissolving an abundant source of it. It was included with everything else.

You also conveniently forgot to explain how shale was formed.

Oh, you want to know how shale forms now?

You also do not seem to understand that we see limestone on top of sandstone, which is intern on top of shale.

Uh .. I've not forgotten anything. I've answered your questions. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them. :roll:

You are also forgetting the basalts found under the Great Unconformity. How do you explain all of that?

Basalt? Where?

I do not remember ever claiming that the unconformity was caused by fluvial erosion, now did I?However, it would be interesting if you could cite a source for this claim. Again, you have not explained why the sedimentary rocks look like that under the Great Unconformity. Please explain the angle of the sedimentary and volcanic rocks seen there.

Compression event. Remember?

The only one dismissing ideas is yourself by refusing to fully answer questions.

:lol: Interesting definition you have there.... :roll:

This thread was started in order for you to stop dodging and be straightforward.

I've answered your questions. :roll:

You do realize that the questions I am asking require more than a single sentence response, correct?

No, they don't..

Please let us have your answers to the questions. If this does not change, I do not see a point in wasting any more time on such an obvious troll.

Feel free to leave.

 

[Stripe]

Damn those Dams!!!!!! :facepalm:

:lol: You think man made dams, built within the last century, would stop the formation of a delta from a river you think has been flowing and carving the GC for the last few million years?

Or were you thinking of something else?

 

[Inferno]

Good question? If the canyon was carved over millions of years, shouldn't there be a great big delta? It isn't there. The delta on the Colorado where it hits the sea is tiny. But check out the floor of the Gulf!

Takes me three and a half seconds to find the correct rebuttal:
TalkOrigins: CD210

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

First, you state this:

Oh, you want to know how shale forms now?

In the next line you posted you state this:

Uh .. I've not forgotten anything. I've answered your questions. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them.

Than further down, you state this:

I've answered your questions.

Do I need any more evidence that you are a troll? Please answer all my questions from my last post. Until this is done, there is no point in wasting time with you.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Sure, there is. And it's something easily tested in the lab. Take a large drum and fill it with seds. Invoke a vertical flow of water through the layer. Ie. attach a pipe to the bottom of the drum and raise and lower the water source to repeatedly fill and empty the drum. Watch the layers evolve.

Nope, doesn't work.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Damn those Dams!!!!!! :facepalm:

:lol: You think man made dams, built within the last century, would stop the formation of a delta from a river you think has been flowing and carving the GC for the last few million years?

Or were you thinking of something else?

I was thinking that the type of sediments that are found in a specific area determine what type of 'action' that caused the sediments to be deposited where they are deposited. I'm fairly certain that 'large' grain sediments would be transported via a mechanism that could move those sediments (tidal forces, flowing rivers just to name a few examples). I'm also fairly certain that if you restrict the flow of water into an area you would expect to witness a higher or lower concentration of certain types of sediments. I'm also fairly certain that if you pull water from certain 'pools' (like behind a dam) that the sediment concentration would be different. I'm sure 'small' grain sediments could be introduced to a particular area via other mechanisms (wind as an example).

I'm thinking that man made 'dams' can have a large impact on the the types of sediments that are deposited in a certain area and thus would effect how a delta takes it shape. I would also assume that the landscape or how the area is 'defined' (low land areas, estuaries, and LOCALIZED floods would have an effect on how the 'delta' was constructed). I would also think that 'earth movement' via plate tectonics would also be an important characteristic to consider. It appears that the Colorado river delta is an extremely dynamic area and without the proper education and physical evidence I will pass off to the geological group for further details (types of rock, how they were laid down, why a specific type of sediment was laid down). Oh, I almost forgot that volcanic activity and or water temperature can also determine how a specific area may look. I would also assume that the individuals that are educated in this specific topic would know how to differentiate between 'localized', 'semi-localized', 'continental-localized', 'plate-localized', and 'global-localized' distinctions.

I'm also fairly certain that if I took the time to study these specific topics in greater detail than I'm currently doing, I could also devise a few theories myself.

Carry on and have a fantastic day. :lol: