Creation/Evolution Debate
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1671 Feb 5, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Accelerate radioactive decay by the factor of 760,000 times required to make it fit your chronology. Then account for the heat produced not turning the earth into a molten lake, even today.
Or, alternatively, explain that apparent deception reuired to sustain the appearance of massive decay, along with the appearance of galaxies millions of light years away, along with the appearance of rock stratification that by any methods we can work out, had to take hundreds of millions of years.
When you get through all that...let us know if its God's deception to test our faith or Satan's work.
How long did this sedimentation take to form?

http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio...
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1672 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Because nobody buys the crap that you are trying to sell.
Shocking!
You are quite damaged....

Wow
MazHere really did a number on you

She left you shop soiled and tainted.....tsk tsk

Now I would NEVER mangle you so bad...

Never

Maybe thrash and twist

But never mangle

Well.....

May be just a little...

Wanna talk ERV's.....? heh, heh...

No seriously
That's not my question

Its the unanswered question that Kondrashov asked

I'm still waiting for an answer

Gillette tried...

Now where is he?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1673 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Shocking!
You are quite damaged....
Wow
MazHere really did a number on you
She left you shop soiled and tainted.....tsk tsk
Now I would NEVER mangle you so bad...
Never
Maybe thrash and twist
But never mangle
Well.....
May be just a little...
Wanna talk ERV's.....? heh, heh...
No seriously
That's not my question
Its the unanswered question that Kondrashov asked
I'm still waiting for an answer
Gillette tried...
Now where is he?
MAZ?!!?!

Sorry, bud.
She ran off with her tail between her legs, leaving you to fend for yourself. The poor lass just couldnt keep up.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1674 Feb 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
MAZ?!!?!
Sorry, bud.
She ran off with her tail between her legs, leaving you to fend for yourself. The poor lass just couldnt keep up.
It was fun watching from the sidelines....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1675 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Shocking!
You are quite damaged....
Wow
MazHere really did a number on you
She left you shop soiled and tainted.....tsk tsk
Now I would NEVER mangle you so bad...
Never
Maybe thrash and twist
But never mangle
Well.....
May be just a little...
Wanna talk ERV's.....? heh, heh...
No seriously
That's not my question
Its the unanswered question that Kondrashov asked
I'm still waiting for an answer
Gillette tried...
Now where is he?
Are you insane? Maz and her Blue Waffle lost every debate she got into with me. She kept repeating topics where she was shown to be wrong.

Her worst defeat was using a travel magazine article as evidence, not even a stupid science magazine, and there are stupid science magazines, but a travel magazine. The evidence had been analyzed and found not to be the fossils she claimed but unchanged bone that had been planted there.

You are an idiot aren't you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1676 Feb 5, 2013
It seems that Russell is impressed by anyone who makes a lot of noise. The quality of the noise does not matter, as long as it is loud and opposes evolution.

What a maroon!
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1677 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you insane? Maz and her Blue Waffle lost every debate she got into with me. She kept repeating topics where she was shown to be wrong.
Her worst defeat was using a travel magazine article as evidence, not even a stupid science magazine, and there are stupid science magazines, but a travel magazine. The evidence had been analyzed and found not to be the fossils she claimed but unchanged bone that had been planted there.
You are an idiot aren't you?
Still sounding sore, mate

Look
Just try and get over it...

Altho......thrashed by a girl....yikes!

How long did this sedimentation take to form?
http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio... [/
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1678 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
It seems that Russell is impressed by anyone who makes a lot of noise. The quality of the noise does not matter, as long as it is loud and opposes evolution.
What a maroon!
Maroon!

Do you mean macaroon?

Incidentally, ALL your noise is quite unimpressive...

Thus far you have provided no evidence for your beliefs

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1679 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Maroon!
Do you mean macaroon?
Incidentally, ALL your noise is quite unimpressive...
Thus far you have provided no evidence for your beliefs
I keep forgetting that you are an uneducated Ozzie:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1680 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Still sounding sore, mate
Look
Just try and get over it...
Altho......thrashed by a girl....yikes!
How long did this sedimentation take to form?
http://creation.com/images/journal_of_creatio... [/
No, I miss Maz and her Blue Waffle. She was hilarious and easily defeated.

If you think that she ever made a point you have to be even more idiotic than Maz.

As to your picture I cannot tell by a picture.

Are you sure that it is even sedimentary? I am betting that is is of volcanic origin.

When rocks are examined it is obvious how they were deposited and we can usually give a reasonable time frame.

Odds are, since you are a Maroon, is that it is pyroclastics from when Mount St. Helens blew.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1681 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I miss Maz and her Blue Waffle. She was hilarious and easily defeated.
If you think that she ever made a point you have to be even more idiotic than Maz.
As to your picture I cannot tell by a picture.
Are you sure that it is even sedimentary? I am betting that is is of volcanic origin.
When rocks are examined it is obvious how they were deposited and we can usually give a reasonable time frame.
Odds are, since you are a Maroon, is that it is pyroclastics from when Mount St. Helens blew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =C_Kh7nLplWoXX
It most obviously is Mt St Helens

Here's the blurb from the figure from the original scientific source:
"Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption."

So that's 7.5 m of fine layering produced in hours

By the way, please do not use terms of endearments with me
I am not your maroon no matter how maroonish you may feel

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1682 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
It most obviously is Mt St Helens
Here's the blurb from the figure from the original scientific source:
"Fine layering was produced within hours at Mt St Helens on June 12, 1980 by hurricane velocity surging flows from the crater of the volcano. The 25-foot thick (7.6 m), June 12 deposit is exposed in the middle of the cliff. It is overlain by the massive, but thinner, March 19,1982 mudflow deposit, and is underlain by the air-fall debris from the last hours of the May 18, 1980, nine-hour eruption."
So that's 7.5 m of fine layering produced in hours
By the way, please do not use terms of endearments with me
I am not your maroon no matter how maroonish you may feel
There is no blurb on my computer when it pops up, only that is is from some sort of Creatard institute. Probably the best place to keep them.

The layering of a volcaniclastic or pyroclastic rock is totally different from regular sedimentary rocks. The fact that in extremely rare circumstances you can have rapid deposition in no way helps your claim that regular sedimentary rocks were deposited quickly.

We know the rate that sediments can be deposited in water. We know what the sediments will look like when deposited in different environments.

You are still a Maroon and an Ignoranimus too.

Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1683 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep forgetting that you are an uneducated Ozzie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =C_Kh7nLplWoXX
That's funny
Ha ha

Save it for Christine
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1684 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no blurb on my computer when it pops up, only that is is from some sort of Creatard institute. Probably the best place to keep them.
The layering of a volcaniclastic or pyroclastic rock is totally different from regular sedimentary rocks. The fact that in extremely rare circumstances you can have rapid deposition in no way helps your claim that regular sedimentary rocks were deposited quickly.
We know the rate that sediments can be deposited in water. We know what the sediments will look like when deposited in different environments.
You are still a Maroon and an Ignoranimus too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =hxGgnI6kCrsXX
So I take it you are familiar with Berthault's work?

And
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382

and

Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1685 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny
Ha ha
Save it for Christine
I was always a big fan of Bugs Bunny, that is one of his more memorable quotes.

Some differences between volcaniclastic and water sorter sediments;

The former are poorly sorted, have sharp angular particles and are often heat welded.

Water deposited sediments are generally well sorted (of course I can name a rare exception) well rounded, and chemically cemented.

The differences are obvious.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1686 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are familiar with Berthault's work?
And
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382
and
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324
No, I have not heard of these people.

Can you list some of the peer reviewed articles that they have published?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1687 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I have not heard of these people.
Can you list some of the peer reviewed articles that they have published?
I agree
Nature is not always peer reviewed

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1688 Feb 5, 2013
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it you are familiar with Berthault's work?
And
Makse, H. A., Havlin, S., King, P. R. and Stanley, H. E., 1997. Spontaneous stratification in granular mixtures. Nature, 386:379–382
and
Fineberg, J., 1997. From Cinderella’s dilemma to rock slides. Nature, 386:323–324
Oh never mind. I see you have mixed in a creatard, Berthault, with some work by geologists that was misinterpreted by other creatards.

It looks like you still have nothing.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#1689 Feb 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh never mind. I see you have mixed in a creatard, Berthault, with some work by geologists that was misinterpreted by other creatards.
It looks like you still have nothing.
No, Bugs

Cretards, as you lovingly refer to, had already demonstrated TEN years earlier what Maske and Fineberg published in Nature published

"And what did the Nature authors discover? Makse et al. found that mixtures of grains of different sizes spontaneously segregate in the absence of external perturbations; that is, when such a mixture is simply poured onto a pile, the large grains are more likely to be found near the base, while the small grains are more likely near the top.13 Furthermore, when a granular mixture is poured between two vertical plates, the mixture spontaneously stratifies into alternating layers of small and large grains whenever the large grains have a larger angle of repose than the small grains. Application—the stratification is related to the occurrence of avalanches.

Fineberg agrees.14 Both the stratification and segregation of a mixture of two types of grains can be observed to occur spontaneously as the mixture is poured into a narrow box, the mixture flowing as the slope of the ‘sandpile’ formed steepens. When the angle of repose of the larger grains is greater than that of the smaller grains, the flow causes spontaneous stratification of the medium to occur, and alternating layers composed of large and small particles are formed, with the smaller and ‘smoother’(lower angle of repose) grains found below the larger and ‘rougher’ grains (there was a beautiful colour photo in Nature). Even within the layers, size segregation of the grains occurs, with the smaller grains tending to be nearer the top of the pile."

This is from :

http://creation.com/sedimentation-experiments...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1690 Feb 5, 2013
From what I have seen Berthault generated huge volumes of nonsense. That he was right on a minor point still does not save him.

In general the type of sorting that you are touting very rarely appears in sedimentary rocks so it is of little value.

It is not a revolutionary discovery. It only applies to poorly sorted sediments that are slightly better sorted after a flow.

How is that supposed to apply to the sedimentary rocks that we see today?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 min Science 33,027
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 22 min Science 81,656
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 51 min Science 164,275
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 8 hr Eagle 12 - 2,191
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web