Conquer Club

Mud from rivers into the oceans

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby hotfire on Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:37 pm

The Gulf of Mexico did not exist 250 million years ago when there was but one supercontinent, Pangea. As Pangea split apart, the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico opened. Louisiana slowly developed, over millions of years, from water into land, and from north to south.[7] The oldest rocks are exposed in the north, in areas such as the Kisatchie National Forest. The oldest rocks date back to the early Tertiary Era, some 60 million years ago. The history of the formation of these rocks can be found in D. Spearing's Roadside Geology of Louisiana.[11]

Main article: Mississippi River Delta

The youngest parts of the state were formed during the last 7,500 years as successive deltas of the Mississippi River: the Maringouin, Teche, St. Bernard, Lafourche, the modern Mississippi, and now the Atchafalaya.[12] The sediments were carried from north to south by the Mississippi River.

In between the Tertiary rocks of the north, and the relatively new sediments along the coast, is a vast belt known as the Pleistocene Terraces. Their age and distribution can be largely related to the rise and fall of sea levels during past ice ages. In general, the northern terraces have had sufficient time for rivers to cut deep channels, while the newer terraces tend to be much flatter.[13]

Salt domes are also found in Louisiana. Their origin can be traced back to the early Gulf of Mexico, when the shallow ocean had high rates of evaporation. There are several hundred salt domes in the state; one of the most familiar is Avery Island.[14] Salt domes are important not only as a source of salt; they also serve as underground traps for oil and gas.[15]
User avatar
Colonel hotfire
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:50 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:22 am

crispybits wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe it's not that it's arrogant, but instead it's satisfying. Many people don't like facing the "I don't know" prospect, so inserting a "god did it" explanation corrects that felt uneasiness.

Neil Tyson has a nice lecture which applies this explanation to some of history's greatest scientists and mathematicians:


See that's one thing I don't understand. I know there's things I don't know, and that's a good feeling, because it means that there's still new and interesting things I can learn about. I'd hate to be in the position where I think I have the answer to everything because that would mean I could never grow (intellectually/spiritually/whateverly) and had reached my limits. There lies real hopelessness in my books.

I've seen that lecture before, still interesting stuff if I remember it rightly. It explains the phenomena without attempting to justify it (and if memory serves he actually fairly strongly criticises that mindset in the end for much the same reasons as above, but that might be subtext that I took from it due to confirmation bias, not sure)


Well... to nitpick (which is one of my favorite hobbies), we all fall victim to the satisfying answer. As opposed to stating "I don't know," in some cases don't we act as if we 'know' some answer (be it, "god does it" or "claim X is not true")? For example, consider that this world may be an illusion or that there may be some Great Experimenter controlling us. Although those are currently beyond the realm of science, and although we may say to ourselves, "I don't know," most of the time we act as if those examples are silly. Most of us don't doubt the existence of the floor right before us as we get out of our chairs. There's this 'certain' belief reflected in our actions which seems to contradict the spoken, "I don't know."

RE: the criticism, that mostly reminds me of Scott Atran's points about guys like Sam Harris and Dawkins/Hawkins(?) not being scientific with their claims about Islam, the dangers of religion, and the god hypothesis. Neil was mainly concerned about why such scientifically minded people can hit some wall and then use the "god did it" claim as a crutch. To me, it seemed that such a path of research would reveal that allure of religion is much more than "these people are delusional/idiots"; there's more to it than that.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby chang50 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:43 am

chang50 wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:Chang, I have the evidence. I am writing this and you are reading it, or had been and without God this is impossible.

The better we understand science, the more clear it is that that were any of the rules governing the universe tweaked even a a trillionth of a trillionth, life would not be possible. If the universe acted to bring these laws about, why would that not be considered our reason for existence and given the credit of God?


I understand that is what you believe and you are obviously entitled to believe as you choose,BUT this is emphatically not a scientific claim as you stated.The universe does indeed appear to us to be fine-tuned,no argument from me there.The problem comes with the gigantic leap you make from that in giving the reason as 'god',however you define it.You simply cannot get there using the scientific method.You can philosophise as theologians have done for centuries employing metaphysical arguments but that is not science..



Hey Sab,how about a response,or better a withdrawl of your absurd claim?
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby universalchiro on Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:15 am

betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?

Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.


Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.

Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.

Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.

My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.

This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.

Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby chang50 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:34 am

universalchiro wrote:
betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?

Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.


Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.

Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.

Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.

My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.

This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.

Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.


Actually evolutionists 'purport' precisely nothing with regards to the formation of the continents or river sediment deposits,precisely zero.For some reason you are confusing the study of evolution with other quite distinct subjects.Your argument appears to be with geologists.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby universalchiro on Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:40 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago as in geological terms. Hope that helps.


Well, his position makes sense if you believe that all anthropologists and archeologists around the world are involved in a mass conspiracy. They're all fabricating 'evidence' with their radiocarbon dating and tree-rings measurements!

Tree ring measurements? You should recheck your facts. The oldest verified tree ring is:
Pinus longaeva 5062years White Mountains, California, USA Discovered by: Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

And you mentioned fabricated evidence? here is a small list with cursory work:
List of fabricated evidence to support Evolution:
Haeckels Embryo drawings: Proven fraud:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/le ... 03726.html

Piltdown man: Missing link of primates to humans: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Archeoraptor: Missing link of dinosaurs to birds: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Lucy: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.html

Nebraska man: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

The list just keeps going, but you get the gist.

The newest tale, when those that age the continents to be 120 million years old, tell you not to look behind the curtain. Look for yourself, look at the lack of sediment deposits at the river deltas. Look at the zero river deposits leading from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to their current location. Don't blindly follow, take leadership and search for yourselves.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby mrswdk on Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:42 am

universalchiro wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
mrswdk wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?


The Amazon didn't exist when Pangea broke up, and when it first came into being it flowed into the Pacific, not the Atlantic.

River sediment doesn't just build up and up into a giant mountain and then stay in the exact same place forever.


Image

Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?


The Amazon didn't exist when Pangea broke up, and when it first came into being it flowed into the Pacific, not the Atlantic.

River sediment doesn't just build up and up into a giant mountain and then stay in the exact same place forever.


Image

Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby crispybits on Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:36 am

_sabotage_ wrote:Your criticism to my proof of God, ie there could be multiple universes or there are aliens creating universes, does not disprove anything. It does not adhere to the scientific method as the only evidence that supports this is the lack of possibility that we exist without intelligent design. Those universes or aliens require a beginning, just as God requires a beginning.

Please do calculate the planetary surface in our solar system which is hospitable for life. Something to chew on while you do: if each electron in our universe represented a chance that life exists, they do not add up to that chance. Perhaps I should rephrase, your stance is absurd.

My stance is arrogant, and I will apologize to the first alien I meet. On the other hand, until then, I will arrogantly praise God as our creator and then will see what evidence the alien has that supports or contradicts this. If you feel that the environment isn't fitted to us, then I would recommend changing your environment.


*sigh* once again I am not trying to prove anything. My random number generator or advanced aliens are simply alternative possibilities, guesses if you like, just as your God is a guess. All I'm saying is that your guess is no more proof of anything than my guess.

Just the 8 major planets, without moons or dwarf planets such as Pluto, gives a figure of 0.0006% (higher than I intuitively thought) of the planetary surface of the solar system is inhabitable by humans without special equipment. That looks really well designed to me, yep, sure thing! (/sarcasm)

And again, I feel that we are well suited to our environment. Just like fish are well suited to their environment. But we don't do so well underwater (without diving gear) and fish don't do so well on land (without fish tanks). I see no reason to go from that to "the environment is designed for us" because so much of it just isn't.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Frigidus on Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:54 am

_sabotage_ wrote:The better we understand science, the more clear it is that that were any of the rules governing the universe tweaked even a a trillionth of a trillionth, life would not be possible.


This is not true. Feel free to source that claim, but I haven't heard that argued outside of creationist videos.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:06 am

So it's not true. The earth is not at a tilt which allows for life, moon is not the right size to create this tilt, the distance of the earth from the sun does not provide us with the right amount of energy to support life, our gravity is not correct to sustain life, our position in the universe is unstable, the sun is not the right size, the ingredients of life are not on our planet, we can just create life out of nothing, there are trillions and trillions of universes, so ours isn't designed.

The rate of the Big Bang expansion, the laws governing matter, the laws governing force, I could go on, but I could just say:

That all things point to intelligent creation. All scientific evidence, that is all proven scientific laws points to God and the only way for scientists to avoid this is by imagining unobservable phenomenon. Which is absurd (sorry Chang, live with it). If any of these laws were broken, we would not exist.

It's up to you to decide if the Big Bang was lucky enough to inadvertently produce a universe that contained all these laws, or that they were guided. The result is the same, we exist because of the laws of the universe. The outcome may be different: do you praise the gift of life in yourself or others, or do you put it down to infinite randomness and act accordingly?
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Frigidus on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:28 am

_sabotage_ wrote:So it's not true. The earth is not at a tilt which allows for life, moon is not the right size to create this tilt, the distance of the earth from the sun does not provide us with the right amount of energy to support life, our gravity is not correct to sustain life, our position in the universe is unstable, the sun is not the right size, the ingredients of life are not on our planet, we can just create life out of nothing, there are trillions and trillions of universes, so ours isn't designed.


1. What percentage of the planets in the universe meet these conditions? Would a designed universe have such a tiny portion of it capable of sustaining life?

2. As was mentioned in the earlier Neil deGrasse Tyson video (I don't expect you to watch a half hour+ video, I just want to give credit where it's due), our little bubble in a sea of lifelessness is precarious and temporary. The sun will eventually engulf our planet, our galaxy will eventually collide with Andromeda, and everything is inevitably going to end in the heat death of the universe. Pretty weak design.

3. We are in a world that is ideal for human life. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise as if we weren't in a place in which human life could exist we wouldn't be talking about it. That said, who is to say that another form of life couldn't exist in a different situation? It is idle speculation at best.

_sabotage_ wrote:The rate of the Big Bang expansion, the laws governing matter, the laws governing force


The basic forces of our universe could be different without much of an effect on potential life. See here:



_sabotage_ wrote:I could go on, but I could just say:

That all things point to intelligent creation. All scientific evidence, that is all proven scientific laws points to God and the only way for scientists to avoid this is by imagining unobservable phenomenon. Which is absurd (sorry Chang, live with it). If any of these laws were broken, we would not exist.


What unobservable phenomena are they imagining, pray tell?
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:14 am

!. How does this support anything but intelligent design?
2. How does this go against intelligent design?
3. Please show me that it does. Please use observed evidence.

The basic forces? So he took all controls into account in the 7 minute video? Without much of an effect, do you mean, we couldn't move, breath or reproduce? Not much of an effect...
Edit: couldn't watch past the point where he said: gravity is irrelevant.

When they culminate the laws that exist, and discover the chance of them being random, a scientist has to decide:

Do they point to an intelligent design or not?

The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The scientist who then takes observed and proven laws and decides they support random design has to justify this. They do so using unobserved phenomenon: multiple universes. If there are trillions upon trillions of universes then the odds become possible. But using this unobserved phenomenon, they aren't adhering to the scientific method and therefore aren't relevant.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby chang50 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:33 am

That all things point to intelligent creation. All scientific evidence, that is all proven scientific laws points to God and the only way for scientists to avoid this is by imagining unobservable phenomenon. Which is absurd (sorry Chang, live with it). If any of these laws were broken, we would not exist.

It's up to you to decide if the Big Bang was lucky enough to inadvertently produce a universe that contained all these laws, or that they were guided. The result is the same, we exist because of the laws of the universe. The outcome may be different: do you praise the gift of life in yourself or others, or do you put it down to infinite randomness and act accordingly?[/quote]

Of course scientists could just make shit up as you are fond of doing but they would not be doing science at that point.Good science admits what it doesn't know.At very best you have an unproven and possibly untestable hypothesis,nothing more,just like the multiverse or the FSM,or any other old nonesense I just pulled outta my arse 5 minutes ago.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby chang50 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:44 am

_sabotage_ wrote:!. How does this support anything but intelligent design?
2. How does this go against intelligent design?
3. Please show me that it does. Please use observed evidence.

The basic forces? So he took all controls into account in the 7 minute video? Without much of an effect, do you mean, we couldn't move, breath or reproduce? Not much of an effect...
Edit: couldn't watch past the point where he said: gravity is irrelevant.

When they culminate the laws that exist, and discover the chance of them being random, a scientist has to decide:

Do they point to an intelligent design or not?

The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The scientist who then takes observed and proven laws and decides they support random design has to justify this. They do so using unobserved phenomenon: multiple universes. If there are trillions upon trillions of universes then the odds become possible. But using this unobserved phenomenon, they aren't adhering to the scientific method and therefore aren't relevant.


You just don't get it,scientific laws don't support design of any type intelligent or random.You haven't even begun to establish that there is any design involved at all.I can't begin to imagine what sort of observation and experimentation would show it.What you are engaging in (very poorly) is speculation,which is ok,but it ain't science.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:59 am

_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.


The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby betiko on Sun Nov 10, 2013 11:18 am

universalchiro wrote:
betiko wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?

Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.


Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.

Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.

Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.

My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.

This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.

Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.


you aren't making any sense here. Where do rivers come from? hum? so when you had pangea you think those rivers existed? rivers come mainly from melting snow in mountains. where do mountains come from? tectonic plates derivation and crash between themselves.

You start with asteroids and other floating elements after the big bang that start adding up together due to gravitation, creating lots of heat and forces. this eventually evolves into a sphere with a very hot core, being itself under the influence of the sun's gravitation. At some point, an ice comet hits it with a huge impact. this makes a lot of debris that add up togeter and become the moon. Meanwhile, the surface of the earth globe find itself under the water, with just 20% or so out of it. the crust is then subject to several forces due to the core and mantle geothermic activity. Eventually, an athmosphere is created, and the earth generates enough gravity to hold it. Lots of luck for everything of course, but as already said; sometimes impossible rolls happen on CC everyone complains about it!
Image
User avatar
Major betiko
 
Posts: 10941
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 pm
Location: location, location
22

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby _sabotage_ on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:40 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.


The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.


Its not a scenario, unless you believe you don't exist. Unfortunately you are saying this to someone who does believe he exists and can observe why this is so.

You are right, science is a story until a better one comes along, and explaining the fact that the laws coincide to create our existence is random isn't a good story based on observable facts, so back to the drawing board with you lot. Don't worry, I'm sure you are smearing God to people regardless of the poor quality story you tell, but if you want some of the sounder souls, then you have your work cut out for you. I would try to work with observable and provable facts, going against the scientific method is a bit hypocritical.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.

It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:44 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.


The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.


Its not a scenario, unless you believe you don't exist. Unfortunately you are saying this to someone who does believe he exists and can observe why this is so.

You are right, science is a story until a better one comes along, and explaining the fact that the laws coincide to create our existence is random isn't a good story based on observable facts, so back to the drawing board with you lot. Don't worry, I'm sure you are smearing God to people regardless of the poor quality story you tell, but if you want some of the sounder souls, then you have your work cut out for you. I would try to work with observable and provable facts, going against the scientific method is a bit hypocritical.


You can't speak of statistics with a sample size of one. Your argument is, essentially, that if certain physical parameters had been slightly different (say, the fine structure constant), then life would not be supported. This is true. What is not true is to say that anyone is attributing this to random chance. No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky, and in the one universe that exists it just happened to land on the right parameters for a universe that supports life. A better way to think about our existence might be the anthropic principle. There are potentially a very large -- or infinite -- number of universes out there, and we are in the one that supports life because it's the one that supports life.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby crispybits on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Can you imagine how embarrassed we'd be if we discovered we'd accidentally evolved in one that didn't support life? How red would our faces be! :-P
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Symmetry on Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:50 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky


Random.org wrote:RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.


Doesn't this site generate its random numbers from the sky?

Sorry, a bit of a fatuous aside, but I liked it.

Carry on
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Metsfanmax on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:02 pm

Symmetry wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky


Random.org wrote:RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.


Doesn't this site generate its random numbers from the sky?

Sorry, a bit of a fatuous aside, but I liked it.

Carry on


No, which is why our numbers are not really random. They were intelligently designed by the turtle god.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby Symmetry on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:08 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:No, which is why our numbers are not really random.


I KNEW IT!
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:37 pm

universalchiro wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.

The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago as in geological terms. Hope that helps.


Well, his position makes sense if you believe that all anthropologists and archeologists around the world are involved in a mass conspiracy. They're all fabricating 'evidence' with their radiocarbon dating and tree-rings measurements!

Tree ring measurements? You should recheck your facts. The oldest verified tree ring is:
Pinus longaeva 5062years White Mountains, California, USA Discovered by: Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

And you mentioned fabricated evidence? here is a small list with cursory work:
List of fabricated evidence to support Evolution:
Haeckels Embryo drawings: Proven fraud:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/le ... 03726.html

Piltdown man: Missing link of primates to humans: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Archeoraptor: Missing link of dinosaurs to birds: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

Lucy: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.html

Nebraska man: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

The list just keeps going, but you get the gist.

The newest tale, when those that age the continents to be 120 million years old, tell you not to look behind the curtain. Look for yourself, look at the lack of sediment deposits at the river deltas. Look at the zero river deposits leading from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to their current location. Don't blindly follow, take leadership and search for yourselves.


Ah, yes. I'll take you seriously since you're prone to mixing up geologists with evolutionary biologists.

Based on your performance from the last thread about evolution and the age of Earth, you were thoroughly defeated. Again you'll discard any scientific claims which contradict your religious beliefs, which makes you unscientific. I'll just ignore you until you can demonstrate that you are otherwise.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby mrswdk on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:45 pm

So what's everyone's favourite river? Mine's the Ganjes.
Lieutenant mrswdk
 
Posts: 14898
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Red Swastika School

Re: Mud from rivers into the oceans

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:46 pm

Frigidus wrote:
_sabotage_ wrote:So it's not true. The earth is not at a tilt which allows for life, moon is not the right size to create this tilt, the distance of the earth from the sun does not provide us with the right amount of energy to support life, our gravity is not correct to sustain life, our position in the universe is unstable, the sun is not the right size, the ingredients of life are not on our planet, we can just create life out of nothing, there are trillions and trillions of universes, so ours isn't designed.


1. What percentage of the planets in the universe meet these conditions? Would a designed universe have such a tiny portion of it capable of sustaining life?


It's weird. Presumably, the purpose of farming intelligent enough life forms is to take in their worship, laugh at them, and then finally harvest their souls (god is a soul-maximizer), so if this is true, why would he produce such a poor environment for life in general?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Evil Semp