Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[One Eyed Jack]

Maybe he's looking for the term "oblate spheroid" or something along those lines.

 

[Pekkle]

I realise that centrifugal forces cause the the equator to bulge, and that the surface of the earth is rugged...

But what would a more accurate term to describe the shape of the earth in order to contrast it from the flat disc we thought it was?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I realise that centrifugal forces cause the the equator to bulge, and that the surface of the earth is rugged...

But what would a more accurate term to describe the shape of the earth in order to contrast it from the flat disc we thought it was?

When did we think it was a flat disk?

 

[koban]

If you're talking about rocket science, you better factor in the discrepancies that prevent the earth from being a true sphere.

If you're talking about geological processes and you make the claim that the entire surface of the earth is covered by sedimentary rock, when it can easily be shown to be a false statement, expect not to be taken seriously.

 

[koban]

When did we think it was a flat disk?

When we were three or four?


BTW - good to see you back OEJ!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I did say that. It's kinda like me saying the Earth is round and then having to listen to people holler about how I'm wrong because the Earth is a sphere or because it's not perfectly spherical... :blabla:

I guess that's all they got. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

If you're talking about rocket science, you better factor in the discrepancies that prevent the earth from being a true sphere.

I'm asking you - is anything a sphere? Is a pool ball a sphere?

If you're talking about geological processes and you make the claim that the entire surface of the earth is covered by sedimentary rock, when it can easily be shown to be a false statement, expect not to be taken seriously.

It's not a false statement if you're prepared to enter into a discussion. I've already conceded the point. Can you see how it changes nothing?

 

[Stripe]

I think I see how evolutionists can believe what they believe. Just look at the evolution this thread has gone through! From, "Did we re-evolve?" to "Is there any such thing as a sphere?".

I think we got an answer to the first question .. :think:

 

[koban]

I'm asking you - is anything a sphere? Is a pool ball a sphere?

Who cares? I'm discussing accuracy of statement, not geometry.

It's not a false statement if you're prepared to enter into a discussion. I've already conceded the point. Can you see how it changes nothing?

Not at all - it shows that your model requires all surface igneous rock to have been layed down post flood.

 

[Stripe]

Who cares? I'm discussing accuracy of statement, not geometry.

Sure thing. But if you're capable of denying that the Earth is a sphere then your objection to the planet being covered in sedimentary deposits is shown in its true light. So, koban. Is a pool ball a sphere?

Not at all - it shows that your model requires all surface igneous rock to have been layed down post flood.

I'm not sure how you got here from there, but, yeah. You're right. So what?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

This reminds me of when Bob debated famous skeptic Michael Shermer and Mr. Shermer refused to acknowledge that the sun was a light. :chuckle:

It's like.... where can ya go from there? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

This reminds me of when Bob debated famous skeptic Michael Shermer and Mr. Shermer refused to acknowledge that the sun was a light. :chuckle:

It's like.... where can ya go from there? :idunno:

:chuckle:

 

[koban]

Sure thing. But if you're capable of denying that the Earth is a sphere then your objection to the planet being covered in sedimentary deposits is shown in its true light.

Like I said, if you're interested in achieving geosychronous orbit, good luck if you start with "the earth's a sphere".

Likewise, if you want to be taken seriously discussing geology, don't make obvious false statements.

So, koban. Is a pool ball a sphere?

It depends on whether you're intending to sink the eight ball or using it as a template for a ball bearing.

I'm not sure how you got here from there, but, yeah. You're right. So what?

So that claim has implications that can be investigated. For example, how much heat would have been generated by the formation of the Deccan Traps? What mechanism do you propose for the Adirondacks, in which the exposed granite of the High Peaks gets overlayed by metamorphic and sedimentary as you go west?

 

[ThePhy]

This reminds me of when Bob debated famous skeptic Michael Shermer and Mr. Shermer refused to acknowledge that the sun was a light. :chuckle:

It's like.... where can ya go from there? :idunno:

Oh, you can have Bob making grandiose claims about how far away things are in Hubble photos without even knowing the photo itself doesn’t give that information.

 

[Stripe]

Like I said, if you're interested in achieving geosychronous orbit, good luck if you start with "the earth's a sphere".

Not interested. :chuckle:

Likewise, if you want to be taken seriously discussing geology, don't make obvious false statements.

I just wanted to point out that there is a lot of sedimentary rock out there and it's found all over the earth. You call it false based on some very strict standards that are completely irrelevant.

It depends on whether you're intending to sink the eight ball or using it as a template for a ball bearing.

I want to know if you'd call the guy down at the pub a cheat for claiming he'd sunk the black sphere.

So that claim has implications that can be investigated. For example, how much heat would have been generated by the formation of the Deccan Traps? What mechanism do you propose for the Adirondacks, in which the exposed granite of the High Peaks gets overlayed by metamorphic and sedimentary as you go west?

Well, golly! How about you answer the questions way back here first!? :dizzy:

 

[koban]

N

Well, golly! How about you answer the questions way back here first!? :dizzy:

You got questions?

Present them.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Stipe writes (in response to my question as to why sedimentary rocks constituted evidence for the flood):

Sedimentary rocks, and I'll haul in my initial statement just to keep Koban happy, cover almost all of the Earth. The vast majority of those rocks were formed in a marine environment. The remainder required a marine environment in order to turn into rocks. There is no large enough area that is far enough away from a sedimentary deposit to reasonably say that it is impossible for that place to have once been submerged. Thus there is direct evidence that the entire Earth was underwater.

Thanks for your response. This is helpful. So I immediately think of a few areas to explore:

1. Do all sedimentary rocks in fact show that they were formed underwater by a great flood?
The mainstream view, I believe, is that as sediment is washed into lakes and seas, they settle, and over time, are compressed into rock. I would think that this process would look different if the sediment was deposited all at once, or over a longer period of time (or over a long, successive period of time. I would think that the sediment would be pretty much in order by size (heavy things precipitating first) if from the flood, but if the result of long periods of erosion, the make up of the sediment would change over time, depending on what was getting washed in.

Further, I would expect that certain catastrophic events (like the earth burning after an asteroid hit) would wash a lot of burned sediment into the waters at a particular point, creating a visible layer of ash, for example. I would not expect to see any evidence of conflagration in rapid flood deposits.

Finally, I would expect to find evidence that sedimentary rock can form in the brief span of time of the flood.

2. The layer-thing seems odd
Given that things are really churned up and then everything is settling (40 days of rain, the gates of the deep opened up, geysers blasting rocks and dirt into orbit, then no more rain, and a year of receding water just to uncover the mountain tops), I would expect that, at least somewhere, there would just be one big, thick layer - like in the ocean or someplace that is not near any land or catch-basin. It should be pretty much in order by particulate size, right?

3. Do we find evidence of humans pre-flood civilization in the sedimentary layers of rock in the middle east?
Since we are talking about the total destruction of all land animals, and civilization as it existed to that point, I would expect to see, at least in the middle east, signs of human civilization mixed into the sedimentary rock. I would expect to find livestock, human remains and human artifacts, along with all the other flora and fauna of the middle east churned and distributed throughout these sedimentary layers.

I would at least expect to see artifacts (axes, adzes, all the other sorts of tools it would take to build the ark, which ark proponents allow would take a similar technology to Europe in the 1700s or China in the 1400s) fairly evenly distributed throughout the various layers of rock.

3. Do we find any evidence in the lower layers of sedimentary rock that the things that were being precipitated out of the water was part of the world of the Bible?
At a bare minimum, you would expect that the flora and fauna at the lowest levels of sedimentary rock represent things that would have been living and growing at the time of the Flood.

So Stipe, I guess you see where I am going with this - I think that the idea of sedimentary layers dating to the flood to be falsified just by going and looking at the contents of the layers. Sedimentary rock not only lacks any evidence that it is only a few thousand years old, it contains flora and fauna that are totally foreign to humans, and no trace of a pre-flood civilization.

You suggest that there is evidence from all over the world that the whole world was under water. I'll just note that a flood is not the only (or even best) explanation for this, as most of the world is ocean (and so underwater), and plate tectonics account for what is currently dry land having been underwater at some time in earth's (very, very long) history.

I understand that I haven't added links to the actual studies of the various rock formations, but since so far, we seem to only be trading assertions, I thought I'd wait on that.

 

[Stripe]

You got questions?
Present them.

Is a billiard ball a sphere? If someone at the pool hall were to refer to the 8-ball as a sphere would you think him incorrect?

 

[Stripe]

Stipe writes (in response to my question as to why sedimentary rocks constituted evidence for the flood):

Thanks for your response. This is helpful. So I immediately think of a few areas to explore:

1. Do all sedimentary rocks in fact show that they were formed underwater by a great flood?
The mainstream view, I believe, is that as sediment is washed into lakes and seas, they settle, and over time, are compressed into rock. I would think that this process would look different if the sediment was deposited all at once, or over a longer period of time (or over a long, successive period of time. I would think that the sediment would be pretty much in order by size (heavy things precipitating first) if from the flood, but if the result of long periods of erosion, the make up of the sediment would change over time, depending on what was getting washed in.

Further, I would expect that certain catastrophic events (like the earth burning after an asteroid hit) would wash a lot of burned sediment into the waters at a particular point, creating a visible layer of ash, for example. I would not expect to see any evidence of conflagration in rapid flood deposits.

Finally, I would expect to find evidence that sedimentary rock can form in the brief span of time of the flood.

2. The layer-thing seems odd
Given that things are really churned up and then everything is settling (40 days of rain, the gates of the deep opened up, geysers blasting rocks and dirt into orbit, then no more rain, and a year of receding water just to uncover the mountain tops), I would expect that, at least somewhere, there would just be one big, thick layer - like in the ocean or someplace that is not near any land or catch-basin. It should be pretty much in order by particulate size, right?

3. Do we find evidence of humans pre-flood civilization in the sedimentary layers of rock in the middle east?
Since we are talking about the total destruction of all land animals, and civilization as it existed to that point, I would expect to see, at least in the middle east, signs of human civilization mixed into the sedimentary rock. I would expect to find livestock, human remains and human artifacts, along with all the other flora and fauna of the middle east churned and distributed throughout these sedimentary layers.

I would at least expect to see artifacts (axes, adzes, all the other sorts of tools it would take to build the ark, which ark proponents allow would take a similar technology to Europe in the 1700s or China in the 1400s) fairly evenly distributed throughout the various layers of rock.

3. Do we find any evidence in the lower layers of sedimentary rock that the things that were being precipitated out of the water was part of the world of the Bible?
At a bare minimum, you would expect that the flora and fauna at the lowest levels of sedimentary rock represent things that would have been living and growing at the time of the Flood.

So Stipe, I guess you see where I am going with this - I think that the idea of sedimentary layers dating to the flood to be falsified just by going and looking at the contents of the layers. Sedimentary rock not only lacks any evidence that it is only a few thousand years old, it contains flora and fauna that are totally foreign to humans, and no trace of a pre-flood civilization.

You suggest that there is evidence from all over the world that the whole world was under water. I'll just note that a flood is not the only (or even best) explanation for this, as most of the world is ocean (and so underwater), and plate tectonics account for what is currently dry land having been underwater at some time in earth's (very, very long) history.

I understand that I haven't added links to the actual studies of the various rock formations, but since so far, we seem to only be trading assertions, I thought I'd wait on that.

Good questions! There's a lot of interesting ideas that can come from a discussion like this.

 

[koban]

Is a billiard ball a sphere?

I thought I already answered this. For the purposes of playing eightball, yes, it would be accurate to refer to it as a sphere. For the purposes of using it as a template for a high precision ball bearing, probably not.

If someone at the pool hall were to refer to the 8-ball as a sphere would you think him incorrect?

No, I would not. Unless he was proposing to use it as a template for a high precision ball bearing.



Any other questions? If not, how about addressing mine?