Stripe
New Member
Here you go.Dragan Glas said:Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.
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.
Here you go.Dragan Glas said:Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.
That's not an explanation. Looks more like a link to an explanation to me.Stripe said:Here you go.Dragan Glas said:Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.
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!Stripe said:Here you go.Dragan Glas said:Come up with your own refutations of the various points raised by all three.
Stripe said:In the Gulf.Frenger said: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.
Sure, it is. When the people critiquing have not read the book to begin with, it is.Dragan Glas said: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!
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.Kindly put forward your own refutation(s) of the various people to whose critiques I've linked.
Deltas do not form at depth. :roll:Frenger said:Isn't that EXACTLY where the colorado river flows? I fail to see his problem with the tradiotional theory.
Stripe said:Deltas do not form at depth. :roll:Frenger said:Isn't that EXACTLY where the colorado river flows? I fail to see his problem with the tradiotional theory.
And it's clear that you either have not read their critiques or are uninterested/unable to answer.Stripe said:Sure, it is. When the people critiquing have not read the book to begin with, it is.Dragan Glas said: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!
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.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.Kindly put forward your own refutation(s) of the various people to whose critiques I've linked.
Fair enough. An actual delta was formed in the Gulf.Frenger said: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.
Of course. :mrgreen:The delta itself also contains a lot of the sediment trasported from the canyon.
:chuckle: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?
Mort's your man, is he?Dragan Glas said:Deal with all the points Morton raised.
Stripe said: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?
frenger said:The delta itself also contains a lot of the sediment trasported from the canyon.
Stripe said:Of course. :mrgreen:
:chuckle:frenger said: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?
stripe said: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?
No, he isn't - he's just one of a number of people who've critiqued Brown's hypothesis as nonsense.Stripe said:Mort's your man, is he?Dragan Glas said:Deal with all the points Morton raised.
On the contrary.Very well. Clear evidence he has not read what he rejects:
Firstly, you answer without answering the question by copy/pasting a unreferenced quote from a book - where does it say this?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.
There are two possible scenarios, in neither of which Brown's hypothesis works: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.
Again, the copy/paste "explanation".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, utter nonsense!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.
As I explained above, the unsupported crust would crack and sink, resulting in a food, regardless.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."
Not a solid crust - as I explained earlier.Morton:
"The bending of the crust by 4.1 km will occur by fracture."
What Morton doesn't understand:
Rocks deform plastically under pressure.
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?Morton:
"Everybody will cook."
What Morton doesn't understand:
Supercritical water expends its energy primarily to kinetic energy.
-source.
I think the most hilarious implication of his work, however, is it required that god constructed the earth itself with an inbuilt exterminatus function.Dragan Glas said:*Reasoned argument*
It wasn't a quote. If you'd read the book, you'd already know.Dragan Glas said:Firstly, you answer without answering the question by copy/pasting a unreferenced quote from a book - where does it say this?
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.Secondly, you clearly do not understand the implication of what Morton is saying.
Which is the clearest indication yet that he hasn't read.The key word/phrase is "Brown's model requires that no mountains be on the pre-flood Earth".
Depends what area is bent downwards.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.
Try reading. :roll: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.
And if you read the book, is explained. How about you tell us how that is explained.Further, there is no indication of jumbled deposits of subterranean rock on the surface.
Rocks aren't water.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.
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.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!
As I explained above, the unsupported crust would crack and sink, resulting in a food, regardless.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."
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.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.
Stripe said: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.
australopithecus said:Sorry to everyone else who wanted an answer from him, but you weren't going to get one anyway.