You can continue to assert that, heck you have said it 20 times already.
I say... your world view is bankrupt. :idunno:
:mock: talkorigins
Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I say... your world view is bankrupt. :idunno:
laughsoutloud
New member
Knight, I thought you were not going to discuss with me?
I have demonstrated that Brown's idea on species sorting is falisfied.
I showed that in the same strata, you find each of Brown's "test group." THis has not been contested.
I showed that similar species are grouped in the same strata (again, with representatives of each of Brown's test group), invariably higher in the geologic column, yet also inarguably these are different creatures. That is, separate populations of Brown's tests groups are found in the same locale, but in different strata. These species are always grouped together.
These facts demonstrate that Brown's idea is wrong, not supported by the data, and shows that the data does not support a global flood.
Note that my argument does not depend on evolution or dating. I am simply pointing out that, by Brown's own criteria, his idea is incorrect.
I have demonstrated that Brown's idea on species sorting is falisfied.
I showed that in the same strata, you find each of Brown's "test group." THis has not been contested.
I showed that similar species are grouped in the same strata (again, with representatives of each of Brown's test group), invariably higher in the geologic column, yet also inarguably these are different creatures. That is, separate populations of Brown's tests groups are found in the same locale, but in different strata. These species are always grouped together.
These facts demonstrate that Brown's idea is wrong, not supported by the data, and shows that the data does not support a global flood.
Note that my argument does not depend on evolution or dating. I am simply pointing out that, by Brown's own criteria, his idea is incorrect.
:rotfl:
You showed all that?
Really? Wow. I guess I missed the slide show.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Maybe if you took the time to read his book (which you haven't) you might be a better critic of the theory. Take the time.... read the book... and if you can falsify any point in it call him and straighten him out.
Telephone Debate Offer.
laughsoutloud
New member
Nice tactics - don't respond, don't defend, just ridicule and deflect.
Still, I did what I said - using Brown's own criteria, I show that the data does not support his contention.
So would you like to now go back and qualify the problems you raised with my original point. I say the entire planet is covered by rocks laid down under water. Your counter-point is growing thinner by the minute.
Perhaps you could ask LOL to answer as well.
You may well say that, but the islands of Hawaii show you to be wrong. As do the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks, or indeed any area that has igneous surface rock. Ask the folks around Temagami, for example. Or google "Deccan Traps".
My "counterpoint"? :chuckle:
You made the claim "laughsoutloud - The entire planet is covered in sedimentary deposits which formed under water" which is a false statement. My "counterpoint" is to point out your error. Instead of getting "thinner", it stands as stated.
I could but why should I? Instead, you could rebut his dismantling of "Dr" Brown's "experiment".
You do realise the Hawaii Islands are islands ... they grew out of water, right? :chuckle:
Your point about igneous rock is a simple piece of refusal to look at my defusing of LOL's points. Igneous rock generally gets deposited through gaps in the crust and protrudes through and displaces sedimentary rocks. You're going to have to do a whole lot better than moving the problem so you can't see it.
That has some cites in it, when I google the cites i get some interesting results.
Also, if someone can direct me to a known K-T boundary exposure in N.C. I'd be appriciative.
I have some plexiglas, I still need some blue-green algea and a battery charger.
laughsoutloud
New member
Stipe, perhaps you would explain how the fact that sedimentary rocks exist supports your position. I want to understand what you are talking about - just how do these rock layers demonstrate a global flood?
Also, do you hold that any layers of sediment were laid down pre-flood? If so, could you identify them? As well, any post-flood layers? Could you identify them? Specifics will make the conversation much clearer and to the point.
I do view this conversation as tangential to showing that Brown is wrong, so I haven't given it much attention, but since I have demonstrated that Brown is wrong, using his own criteria, and you seem to think this is significant, let's move on to your issue.
Also, do you hold that any layers of sediment were laid down pre-flood? If so, could you identify them? As well, any post-flood layers? Could you identify them? Specifics will make the conversation much clearer and to the point.
I do view this conversation as tangential to showing that Brown is wrong, so I haven't given it much attention, but since I have demonstrated that Brown is wrong, using his own criteria, and you seem to think this is significant, let's move on to your issue.
The rock that the tourists walk around on has never been underwater. Not once. Is it your claim that the Hawaiin islands, the Temagami region, the Deccan Traps, the Adirondack High Peaks, etc, etc, etc were all created after the Great Flood?
This thread isn't really about proving Dr. Brown wrong. This is a tangent to that tangent which was a tangent trying to direct attention away from the shortcomings of evolution based dino disappearance theories, but feel free to try and prove me wrong.
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.
I don't think there are any pre-flood sedimentary rocks of any significance still around. All the sedimentary rocks were laid down in a succession of events associated with the flood and its dispersal.
If you mean that it was never in a marine environment then you might well be correct. However that does nothing to disprove what I'm saying.
Sure. Why not?
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying then. I thought you were saying that the surface of the world is covered by sedimentary rock.
Oh, lots of reasons. I just wanted to see if that was your position.
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:
Yeah, it's a common complaint of those not trained as scientists - thinking that sloppy language and sloppy thinking don't really matter....
OK. Now you're just being a moron.
Koban - is anything a sphere? Is a billiard ball a sphere?