he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stripe said:How about something more rocky? I think most every rock formation brings great evidence that it was formed rapidly.
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=133523#p133523 said:DepricatedZero[/url]"]So which is it here? Do you accept that the biofilms might have preserved the original material, offering an explanation, or not?
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=133079#p133079 said: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!
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=132246#p132246 said: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?
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=132841#p132841 said: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.
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=141845#p141845 said: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.
[url=http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=142628#p142628 said:he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]YesYouNeedJesus said: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.
1. Lots of water and lots of sediment.he_who_is_nobody said:Explain how this was formed rapidly.
Stripe said:1. Lots of water and lots of sediment.he_who_is_nobody said:Explain how this was formed rapidly.
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.
Sure, it does. Have you not heard that even limestone forms under water?he_who_is_nobody said:This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation.
One is a wholly biological process, one is a mostly non-biological process.Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed?
A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.
Please give ideas you haven't come across before a chance before arbitrarily dismissing them.Please try again.
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?Stripe said:A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?
They weren't deposited on that angle, that's for sure!Master_Ghost_Knight said:But they are not deformed
Made? All by one event that lasted about a year.are you seriously sugesting that all those different types of sediments were made out of 1 or 3 events at most?
Part 5.And how do you reconcile with this:
Stripe said: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.
I agree.Stripe said:They weren't deposited on that angle, that's for sure!
Even if you haven't conceeded that, this:Stripe said: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.Stripe said:All by one event that lasted about a year.
Stripe said:Sure, it does. Have you not heard that even limestone forms under water?he_who_is_nobody said:This does not explain the limestone and shell found near the top of the formation.
Stripe said:One is a wholly biological process, one is a mostly non-biological process.Do you even know how limestone and shell is formed?
Stripe said:A compression event doesn't explain deformed rock? :?Nor does it explain the angular-nonconformity at the bottom.
Stripe said:Please give ideas you haven't come across before a chance before arbitrarily dismissing them.Please try again.
First you need carbonate rich water, then you need to remove the water.he_who_is_nobody said:Of course they form under water, but how do they form?
:lol: This is why creationists laugh at atheists. Always referring to outdated ideas. The peneplain hypothesis is bunk.: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.
In a few big holes.1. where is the water now? where did the sediment come from?
See the metamorphic rock? That melted a little. The rest wasn't exposed to much pressure. The seds just rode atop.2. how was the event so massive it could compress so quickly, yet not melt the material
Same thing that happens when you remove water from cement.4. define lithification
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!5. Away to where? Where is the new rock now? Show me where it is on a map.
And, oh, the tales they tell.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.
Sure you did.As I have pointed out above, I did not arbitrarily dismiss your ideas.
Great!Master_Ghost_Knight said:I agree.
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.... there is no method of sorting that would do that in 1 go.
Stripe said: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!
Stripe said:First you need carbonate rich water, then you need to remove the water.
Stripe said:This is why creationists laugh at atheists. Always referring to outdated ideas. The peneplain hypothesis is bunk.
Stripe said:Sure you did.As I have pointed out above, I did not arbitrarily dismiss your ideas.
Uh .. It was unintentional, I assure you. :?he_who_is_nobody said:Why did you mix Master_Ghost_Knight's posts with mine? Was that necessary?
It came from a lot of hot water dissolving an abundant source of it. It was included with everything else.Now please explain where this carbonate water came from and where it went when the sandstones and shale was being formed.
Oh, you want to know how shale forms now?You also conveniently forgot to explain how shale was formed.
Uh .. I've not forgotten anything. I've answered your questions. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them. :roll:You also do not seem to understand that we see limestone on top of sandstone, which is intern on top of shale.
Basalt? Where?You are also forgetting the basalts found under the Great Unconformity. How do you explain all of that?
Compression event. Remember?Stripe said: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.
:lol: Interesting definition you have there.... :roll:The only one dismissing ideas is yourself by refusing to fully answer questions.
I've answered your questions. :roll:This thread was started in order for you to stop dodging and be straightforward.
No, they don't..You do realize that the questions I am asking require more than a single sentence response, correct?
Feel free to leave.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.
: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?CommonEnlightenment said:Damn those Dams!!!!!! :facepalm:
Stripe said: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!
Stripe said:Oh, you want to know how shale forms now?
Stripe said:Uh .. I've not forgotten anything. I've answered your questions. If you have more questions, feel free to ask them.
Stripe said:I've answered your questions.
Nope, doesn't work.Stripe said: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.
Stripe said::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?CommonEnlightenment said:Damn those Dams!!!!!! :facepalm:
Or were you thinking of something else?