Unanswered Questions

[Stripe]

Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.

Here you go.

 

[australopithecus]

I do believe he said "your own" refutations. Not copypasta.

 

[Dean]

Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.

Here you go.

That's not an explanation. Looks more like a link to an explanation to me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.

Here you go.

Given that the issues raised by the various people to whose critiques I linked were in response to Brown's hypothesis as outlined in his book, your linking to his book is not a refutation!

Kindly put forward your own refutation(s) of the various people to whose critiques I've linked.

Kindset regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

Mr Brown says that later in his book he will explain where he "thinks" all the dirt and mud and layers of rock went, could you explain where he says it ended up please, along with citations or evidence to back up his claim.

In the Gulf.

Isn't that EXACTLY where the colorado river flows? I fail to see his problem with the tradiotional theory.

 

[Stripe]

Given that the issues raised by the various people to whose critiques I linked were in response to Brown's hypothesis as outlined in his book, your linking to his book is not a refutation!

Sure, it is. When the people critiquing have not read the book to begin with, it is.

Kindly put forward your own refutation(s) of the various people to whose critiques I've linked.

You point out which you believe is the best of their points and I'll show you how their assault is directly addressed in the book - and that they have obviously not read that address.

 

[Stripe]

Isn't that EXACTLY where the colorado river flows? I fail to see his problem with the tradiotional theory.

Deltas do not form at depth. :roll:

 

[Frenger]

Isn't that EXACTLY where the colorado river flows? I fail to see his problem with the tradiotional theory.

Deltas do not form at depth. :roll:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I was saying that the colorado river delta flows into the gulf which would account for a lot of the sediment transported from grand canyon. A lot of sediment was also deposited on the submerging trough of the San Andreas fault.
The delta itself also contains a lot of the sediment trasported from the canyon.

You said, when asked where Mr Brown thought the sediment HAD been deposited simply "In the Gulf", I'm saying by that short answer you have said similar to me, but not really, you had left a lot out.

Also by adding sunglasses and eye rolling emoticons at the end of every sentence doesn't mean the sentence preceding it made any sense, it just makes it annoying to read. :shock: :? :lol: :x :mrgreen: :geek: .....see?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Given that the issues raised by the various people to whose critiques I linked were in response to Brown's hypothesis as outlined in his book, your linking to his book is not a refutation!

Sure, it is. When the people critiquing have not read the book to begin with, it is.

And it's clear that you either have not read their critiques or are uninterested/unable to answer.

Kindly put forward your own refutation(s) of the various people to whose critiques I've linked.

You point out which you believe is the best of their points and I'll show you how their assault is directly addressed in the book - and that they have obviously not read that address.

It's not that difficult for you to address the points raised by Morton, from both the OEC site and Arthur's response to Brown's presentation.

Deal with all the points Morton raised.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Stripe]

You said, when asked where Mr Brown thought the sediment HAD been deposited simply "In the Gulf", I'm saying by that short answer you have said similar to me, but not really, you had left a lot out.

Fair enough. An actual delta was formed in the Gulf.

Part of the big picture is that sea level was a lot lower for a time. The delta was subsequently drowned and has been significantly obscured. With thousands of cubic kms of sediment excavated from the canyon, there must be a significant delta somewhere.

But where is it?

The delta itself also contains a lot of the sediment trasported from the canyon.

Of course. :mrgreen:

Also by adding sunglasses and eye rolling emoticons at the end of every sentence doesn't mean the sentence preceding it made any sense, it just makes it annoying to read. :shock: :? :lol: :x :mrgreen: :geek: .....see?

:chuckle:

I'm just trying to keep it all light-hearted. They're just rocks, afterall.

When we start talking something serious I'll give them up, deal?

 

[Stripe]

Deal with all the points Morton raised.

Mort's your man, is he?

Very well. Clear evidence he has not read what he rejects:

Morton:
"Brown's model requires that no mountains be on the preflood earth, forcing the Bible to be wrong."

What Mort didn't read:
Preflood mountains described in numerous places by Dr. Brown.

Morton:
"There must be no earthquakes before the flood."

What Mort didn't read:
Earthquakes are a result of the events which caused the flood.

Morton:
This means that there must be no meteorites before the flood.

What Mort didn't read:
Meteorites are a result of the events which caused the flood.

Morton:
"the flood would have happened regardless of whether or not man sinned."

What Mort didn't read:
"Man's sin caused the flood. At the end of the creation week, all that God created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so the flood was not inevitable at that time."

Morton:
"The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture."

What Morton doesn't understand:
Rocks deform plastically under pressure.

Morton:
"Everybody will cook."

What Morton doesn't understand:
Supercritical water expends its energy primarily to kinetic energy.

-source.

 

[Frenger]

Fair enough. An actual delta was formed in the Gulf.

Part of the big picture is that sea level was a lot lower for a time. The delta was subsequently drowned and has been significantly obscured. With thousands of cubic kms of sediment excavated from the canyon, there must be a significant delta somewhere.

But where is it?

Here it is.

The delta itself also contains a lot of the sediment trasported from the canyon.

Of course. :mrgreen:

Yep, please to read the second paragraph of the introduction http://uabc.academia.edu/JoseCarriq...rnia_after_nearly_a_century_of_discharge_loss

Also by adding sunglasses and eye rolling emoticons at the end of every sentence doesn't mean the sentence preceding it made any sense, it just makes it annoying to read. :shock: :? :lol: :x :mrgreen: :geek: .....see?

:chuckle:

I'm just trying to keep it all light-hearted. They're just rocks, afterall.

When we start talking something serious I'll give them up, deal?

Deal

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Deal with all the points Morton raised.

Mort's your man, is he?

No, he isn't - he's just one of a number of people who've critiqued Brown's hypothesis as nonsense.

Very well. Clear evidence he has not read what he rejects:

On the contrary.

Morton:
"Brown's model requires that no mountains be on the preflood earth, forcing the Bible to be wrong."

What Mort didn't read:
Preflood mountains described in numerous places by Dr. Brown.

Firstly, you answer without answering the question by copy/pasting a unreferenced quote from a book - where does it say this?

Secondly, you clearly do not understand the implication of what Morton is saying.

The key word/phrase is "Brown's model requires that no mountains be on the pre-flood Earth".

Just because Brown talks about mountains doesn't mean his model allows mountains - it doesn't. This is one of the reasons that Brown doesn't know what he's talking about - which is what Morton indicates.

Now for a mountain 10 km (1 x 106 cm) in radius and 5 km (5 x 105 cm) in height (h), the minimum thickness of the crust must be 5 x 105 (2.1-1) (1-e-LA cos(LA))/(2.65-2.1)=1.1 x 106 cm =4.1 km

The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture. This would immediately release the water. Thus, there are no mountains. Even a hill 1 km high would require that the crust bend by 830 meters.

Therefore the crust must be perfectly smooth. Thus, you must violate the Biblical record where it says that all the high mountains were covered. In your conception of the flood there could be no mountains or hills.

There are two possible scenarios, in neither of which Brown's hypothesis works:

1) Solid crust

As Morton shows, even a 1km high hill would cause a 830m deflection in the Earth's crust.

In a solid crust this would result in the crust cracking, thus releasing the alleged subterranean water. Given the height of Mount Ararat, the stress on the crust would be even greater - I'll let you do the mathematics.

Note also, that height difference between rivers/seas and banks/seas-bottoms would represent a difference in height sufficient (particularly in the latter case) to cause such cracks to occur.

Further, as he states, the Earth's crust is not light enough to "float" on the surface of subterranean water, as Brown describes, without some form of columns/pillars supporting it above the core - it would crack and sink (due to the forces involved along with the temperatures due to friction between crust/water/core), thus forcing the water to escape regardless of when any "Flood" was supposed to happen.

Further, there is no indication of jumbled deposits of subterranean rock on the surface.

2) "Plastic" crust

In this case, again due to the forces involved, the crust would act more like the surface of the seas - undulating up-and-down with such force as to prevent any life from being able to survive.

No flora - including trees - could take root/remain standing.

No fauna - including Man - could keep its footing, let alone breed, build houses (never-mind ones that wouldn't collapse), grow crops, etc.

The crust would resemble a permanent, world-wide earthquake. It's quite possible that everything would be bouncing up-and-down on the crust like someone on a trampoline. And falls from any sufficient height would be incapacitating, never-mind fatal.

Morton:
"There must be no earthquakes before the flood."

What Mort didn't read:
Earthquakes are a result of the events which caused the flood.

Again, the copy/paste "explanation".

This is nonsense - plate tectonics explain earthquakes and other geological phenomena.

Morton:
This means that there must be no meteorites before the flood.

What Mort didn't read:
Meteorites are a result of the events which caused the flood.

Again, utter nonsense!

Are you seriously suggesting that meteorite craters as far out as the outer planets are explained by "The Flood"??

Explain how this occurs!

Morton:
"the flood would have happened regardless of whether or not man sinned."

What Mort didn't read:
"Man's sin caused the flood. At the end of the creation week, all that God created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so the flood was not inevitable at that time."

As I explained above, the unsupported crust would crack and sink, resulting in a food, regardless.

Morton:
"The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture."

What Morton doesn't understand:
Rocks deform plastically under pressure.

Not a solid crust - as I explained earlier.

Morton:
"Everybody will cook."

What Morton doesn't understand:
Supercritical water expends its energy primarily to kinetic energy.

-source.

Nonsense - explain how this happens. Do the mathematics and show how much water "expends its energy to [sic] kinetic energy". What happens to the rest in Brown's scenario?

Any person with a decent understanding of physics can see that this idea is nonsense.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Anachronous Rex]

*Reasoned argument*

I think the most hilarious implication of his work, however, is it required that god constructed the earth itself with an inbuilt exterminatus function.

Is this really the behavior we should expect of a loving god?

 

[Stripe]

Firstly, you answer without answering the question by copy/pasting a unreferenced quote from a book - where does it say this?

It wasn't a quote. If you'd read the book, you'd already know.

Secondly, you clearly do not understand the implication of what Morton is saying.

Sure, I did. And if Mort had read what he is so opposed to, he would have presented the actual case he was arguing against rather than beating up a straw man.

The key word/phrase is "Brown's model requires that no mountains be on the pre-flood Earth".

Which is the clearest indication yet that he hasn't read.

The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture. This would immediately release the water. Thus, there are no mountains. Even a hill 1 km high would require that the crust bend by 830 meters.

Depends what area is bent downwards.

In a solid crust this would result in the crust cracking, thus releasing the alleged subterranean water. Given the height of Mount Ararat, the stress on the crust would be even greater - I'll let you do the mathematics.

Try reading. :roll:

Further, there is no indication of jumbled deposits of subterranean rock on the surface.

And if you read the book, is explained. How about you tell us how that is explained.

2) "Plastic" crustIn this case, again due to the forces involved, the crust would act more like the surface of the seas - undulating up-and-down with such force as to prevent any life from being able to survive.

Rocks aren't water.

This is nonsense - plate tectonics explain earthquakes and other geological phenomena.Again, utter nonsense!Are you seriously suggesting that meteorite craters as far out as the outer planets are explained by "The Flood"??Explain how this occurs!

Perhaps you do have explanations better than Dr. Brown's. Luckily I am not required to defend against that possibility. I just had to provide evidence that Mort has not read what he opposes. These are clear evidences.

Morton:"the flood would have happened regardless of whether or not man sinned."

What Mort didn't read:
"Man's sin caused the flood. At the end of the creation week, all that God created was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so the flood was not inevitable at that time."

As I explained above, the unsupported crust would crack and sink, resulting in a food, regardless.

Nonsense - explain how this happens. Do the mathematics and show how much water "expends its energy to [sic] kinetic energy". What happens to the rest in Brown's scenario?Any person with a decent understanding of physics can see that this idea is nonsense.

Why don't you read what you're so opposed to and point out exactly how. Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. It's pretty boring just listening to you rant.

 

[bluejatheist]

Why don't you read what you're so opposed to and point out exactly how. Then maybe we can have a rational discussion. It's pretty boring just listening to you rant.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The Stripe Method of Debate:
1) State Baseless Assertions.
2) Refuse to discuss the flaws, even when solid facts are brought up so I can avoid the possible chance that anything I defend to look more wtrong than it already does on the few words I do post.
3) Look like a tool, and get Gnug Smash'd in the forseeable future.

Dragan Glas answered you - you owe it to your Christian breatheren to answer back.

 

[australopithecus]

:facepalm:

This stops now. I've been watching this crap unfold with the morbid fascination of driving past a car crash but Stripe has demonstrated in every thread he posts in that he is unwilling to hold a rational and honest debate.

Stripe. See you in the summer.

Sorry to everyone else who wanted an answer from him, but you weren't going to get one anyway.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Sorry to everyone else who wanted an answer from him, but you weren't going to get one anyway.

He talked?

 

[australopithecus]

No, but it obvious to anyone with eyes that he was just in it for the lulz. Maybe he'll have a change of heart when the ban expires in August.