A
atheistgirl
Guest
None of which answers any of the questions I asked you.
Never mind.
I understand it can be hard to just say ‘‘No’’ sometimes.
Sarah x
- Status
Never mind.
I understand it can be hard to just say ‘‘No’’ sometimes.
Sarah x
P
Pheonix
Guest
And fossil evidence is typically preserved within sediments beneath water (which Wang’s article supports). Further, tectonic forces and erosion can/do play a part in discovering fossils.
More to the point, we’re talking about the mountains themselves being eroded. Many exceedingly tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rock. If there really was a global Flood of forty days and forty nights, then why are the studies of how much they’ve eroded vastly different? In other words, if there really was a global Flood, then the erosion should have been distributed evenly among mountains. Yet, the erosion between the Appalachians and the Rockies is significantly different.
ScienceDaily’s interpretation of Professor Wang’s original article (and the original article itself) simply doesn’t answer my question. Therefore, I fail to see how the article refutes my argument or lends support to yours.
Research into the actual article, rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2008summerfall/field01_a.asp, brings this up:So we went from 50 million to 2.Things are changing…
“There are two points we know for sure,” said Yang Wang, associate professor of geological sciences. “There are marine sediments in the region from about 50 to 60 million years ago. So we know that 50 to 60 million years ago that area was under sea level. And we know the modern day elevation.”
Several paragraphs later…
In her most recent paper, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Wang describes evidence from one site showing that as recently as 2 to 3 million years ago the northern part of the now barren plateau was at a lower elevation, warm with life, grasslands, fresh water lakes and large animals.
So sure, the elevation may not be what geologists originally expected, but the fossil evidence is still shown to be between 50- and 60 million-years-old. I still fail to see how this lends supports to your claims.
B
buffalo
Guest
Water in the Earth’s mantleNone of which answers any of the questions I asked you.
Never mind.
I understand it can be hard to just say ‘‘No’’ sometimes.
Sarah x
Water plays an important role in most processes within the Earth’s mantle, e.g. transport phenomena, differentiation and seismic properties. This paper reviews the various aspects of water in the mantle, with a special emphasis on the water content in nominally anhydrous minerals, especially lower-mantle minerals. The saturation of the upper mantle with respect to water is calculated as a function of pressure, based on available water-solubility data obtained for upper-mantle minerals. The result indicates that the upper mantle is saturated at pressures between 2 and 4 GPa for bulk water contents of 250 to 700 ppm wt., as retrieved from measurements on mid-ocean ridge basalts (MORBs) and ocean island basalts (OIBs). Whereas up to 4000 ppm wt. of H2O could be dissolved in the upper mantle at pressures corresponding to 410 km depth, such a value is less than the 1.5–2.5 wt.% solubility stored in the hydrous phases of the transition zone. Water solubility in mantle perovskite is still controversial, because of the difficulty of synthesizing samples free of impurities. Reported data indicate that water solubility in perovskite decreases with increasing temperature and Al content. Water partitions preferentially into ferropericlase rather than into perovskite, and its water solubility increases with the incorporation of trivalent cations.
B
buffalo
Guest
I will finish with this:
New model to estimate water in the Earth’s mantle:
The Earth’s mantle could be holding as much water as the ocean and atmosphere combined—but in the form of defects in dry minerals, such as olivine, that make up a large fraction of the mantle. Water in mantle minerals weakens chemical bonds, affecting physical and chemical properties of the mantle, particularly viscosity and electrical conductivity. Scientists continue to debate not just the amount of water but also its distribution in the mantle. Seismic velocity profiles, typically used to map the water content of the mantle, are, in fact, not sensitive to the amount of water. An increase of 1% by weight of water in mantle minerals, i.e., from “dry” to “very wet” conditions, reduces seismic velocities by at most 1%, which is often below the detection limit. On the other hand, an increase in water content by only 0.01%, from “dry” to “damp” conditions increases electrical conductivity in mantle minerals by an order of magnitude or more, making electrical conductivity a more sensitive tool to estimate the water content of mantle minerals.
I have made the case for there being enough water. Next.
New model to estimate water in the Earth’s mantle:
The Earth’s mantle could be holding as much water as the ocean and atmosphere combined—but in the form of defects in dry minerals, such as olivine, that make up a large fraction of the mantle. Water in mantle minerals weakens chemical bonds, affecting physical and chemical properties of the mantle, particularly viscosity and electrical conductivity. Scientists continue to debate not just the amount of water but also its distribution in the mantle. Seismic velocity profiles, typically used to map the water content of the mantle, are, in fact, not sensitive to the amount of water. An increase of 1% by weight of water in mantle minerals, i.e., from “dry” to “very wet” conditions, reduces seismic velocities by at most 1%, which is often below the detection limit. On the other hand, an increase in water content by only 0.01%, from “dry” to “damp” conditions increases electrical conductivity in mantle minerals by an order of magnitude or more, making electrical conductivity a more sensitive tool to estimate the water content of mantle minerals.
I have made the case for there being enough water. Next.
B
buffalo
Guest
Why do you think the erosion would be even?And fossil evidence is typically preserved within sediments beneath water (which Wang’s article supports). Further, tectonic forces and erosion can/do play a part in discovering fossils.
More to the point, we’re talking about the mountains themselves being eroded. Many exceedingly tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rock. If there really was a global Flood of forty days and forty nights, then why are the studies of how much they’ve eroded vastly different? In other words, if there really was a global Flood, then the erosion should have been distributed evenly among mountains. Yet, the erosion between the Appalachians and the Rockies is significantly different.
ScienceDaily’s interpretation of Professor Wang’s original article (and the original article itself) simply doesn’t answer my question. Therefore, I fail to see how the article refutes my argument or lends support to yours.
Research into the actual article, rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2008summerfall/field01_a.asp, brings this up:
“There are two points we know for sure,” said Yang Wang, associate professor of geological sciences. “There are marine sediments in the region from about 50 to 60 million years ago. So we know that 50 to 60 million years ago that area was under sea level. And we know the modern day elevation.”
Several paragraphs later…
In her most recent paper, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Wang describes evidence from one site showing that as recently as 2 to 3 million years ago the northern part of the now barren plateau was at a lower elevation, warm with life, grasslands, fresh water lakes and large animals.
So sure, the elevation may not be what geologists originally expected, but the fossil evidence is still shown to be between 50- and 60 million-years-old. I still fail to see how this lends supports to your claims.
B
buffalo
Guest
and it says -And fossil evidence is typically preserved within sediments beneath water (which Wang’s article supports). Further, tectonic forces and erosion can/do play a part in discovering fossils.
More to the point, we’re talking about the mountains themselves being eroded. Many exceedingly tall mountains are composed of sedimentary rock. If there really was a global Flood of forty days and forty nights, then why are the studies of how much they’ve eroded vastly different? In other words, if there really was a global Flood, then the erosion should have been distributed evenly among mountains. Yet, the erosion between the Appalachians and the Rockies is significantly different.
ScienceDaily’s interpretation of Professor Wang’s original article (and the original article itself) simply doesn’t answer my question. Therefore, I fail to see how the article refutes my argument or lends support to yours.
Research into the actual article, rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2008summerfall/field01_a.asp, brings this up:
“There are two points we know for sure,” said Yang Wang, associate professor of geological sciences. “There are marine sediments in the region from about 50 to 60 million years ago. So we know that 50 to 60 million years ago that area was under sea level. And we know the modern day elevation.”
Several paragraphs later…
In her most recent paper, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Wang describes evidence from one site showing that as recently as 2 to 3 million years ago the northern part of the now barren plateau was at a lower elevation, warm with life, grasslands, fresh water lakes and large animals.
So sure, the elevation may not be what geologists originally expected, but the fossil evidence is still shown to be between 50- and 60 million-years-old. I still fail to see how this lends supports to your claims.
Wang’s findings challenge the prevailing view in her field of a much older timeline of the plateau’s elevation. One study published three years ago in the premier journal Nature estimated that the plateau reached its extraordinary elevation as long ago as 40 million years. But that conclusion was based on a less reliable technique, Wang said.
Though Wang has significantly narrowed the timeline for one part of the plateau’s uplift, there still remains plenty of room for more spirited debate about the vast region, for which Wang keeps her dental drill at the ready.
Which I think was my point.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
P
Pheonix
Guest
Umm… because it would?
A global flood simply cannot explain geological formations, such as angular unconformities. where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes to occur. Additionally, there is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains (which has been shown to be caused by glacial matters).
Further, the Flood, if it actually did occur on a global scale, should have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. In other words, the amount of erosion on mountains should have been distributed evenly if they were all underwater for forty days and forty nights. Yet, the amount of erosion on the Appalachians and the amount of erosion on the Rockies are significantly different.
P
Pheonix
Guest
If that indeed your point, then I will concede to that. It’s not surprising for prevailing to be challenged by new evidence. That’s what science is, after all. Further, Wang’s findings only work for one part of the plateau; they cannot be used to explain the entirety of its elevation change.and it says -
Wang’s findings challenge the prevailing view in her field of a much older timeline of the plateau’s elevation. One study published three years ago in the premier journal Nature estimated that the plateau reached its extraordinary elevation as long ago as 40 million years. But that conclusion was based on a less reliable technique, Wang said.
Though Wang has significantly narrowed the timeline for one part of the plateau’s uplift, there still remains plenty of room for more spirited debate about the vast region, for which Wang keeps her dental drill at the ready.
Which I think was my point.
You still haven’t addressed my questions, though.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Oh, don’t be sorry, this is still an open forum. It we were unable to interact freely the forum would be quite dull.Oh I’m sorry.
I asked the questions of Buffalo.
I’ll wait his response.
Thanks.
Sarah x
F
Farsight001
Guest
No you most certainly have not. You have repeatedly ignored questions asked of you, repeatedly ignored counter arguments, repeatedly ignored the fact that your sources are not from qualified scholars, repeatedly ignored peoples’ explanations that your sources don’t even come close to what you claim they say, and ignored mathematical disproof of your claims, which are actually completely inconsistent with the sources you provide.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Spot on.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Jesus was talking to the people of His time in their context. He wasn’t commenting on the veracity of Genesis but the nature of his mission. As the New Ark of the New Covenant.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Jesus spoke with veracity on all subjects. Catholic theologians have told us what parts of sacred scripture are just stories in the NT . To say there were selective issues is a guess on your part as you previously used a good number of “maybes”. Breaking the sabbath was “out of their context” as well as saying he was God. Not exactly fitting with the norm of the time for a religious Jew. He was just pacifying them with Genesis and the flood but went way out of the norm with everything else? Your reaching and you know it doesn’t fit.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Of course He was speaking the Truth - He IS the New Ark of the New Covenant.
This does not mean: Genesis is literal. There was a global flood. Noah was 600 years old.
This does not mean: Genesis is literal. There was a global flood. Noah was 600 years old.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Through wisdom, understanding, study, faith, and the teachings of the Church, of course.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
But you said he spoke to the people (and I’m paraphrasing) in a way they could understand and were familiar with. You must know that Jesus always went outside the norm because He was as you say the the Ark of the new Covenant. He does all these 'abnormal" things for his time (so much that they want to kill him) but He’s fooling them and needs to stay rigidly consistent with the flood and Genesis account?
If there ever was a time to tell the Jews the truth and say Genesis and the flood were just stories this was it, because He broke every other rule and challeged all their beliefs. But what does he do? He tells it like it is, and changes not a word about Noah or Genesis. YES, He told the truth. See it , believe it.
T
triumphguy
Guest
So when Pope Benedict says that Genesis is not literally true is he lying?
Our Church is not a black and white, fundamentalist, biblical literalist, sola scriptura institution! If you think it is perhaps you are in the wrong denomination.
Our Church is no one of either/or but both/and.
Our Church is not a black and white, fundamentalist, biblical literalist, sola scriptura institution! If you think it is perhaps you are in the wrong denomination.
Our Church is no one of either/or but both/and.
N
nordskoven
Guest
If we have human remains in coal strata from 300 million years ago/mya, what does that do for pseudo-scientists that have consistently rejected such hard evidence? Here’s a pic of fingers. Can we ever believe anything science has posited?!? Or wait, should we merely disbelieve the evolution construct that has defrauded and mocked its way into our minds?
As one may have noticed, the ancients weren’t very creative. They hung on to stories, however corrupted, and moderns interpret them, just like Schliemann found Troy. What now? No peer reviewed article said Troy should be there but he found it. Science, real science, is in flux. This finger, and the many other human body parts found in carboniferous strata, should not be there according to the consensus-forcing fascists who control the purse strings of academia. But here it is.
No flood in 10,000 years from tree rings? How about a flood 12,000 years ago when something really big happened, like a pole shift that eradicated 40 million animals? And the volume of water wouldn’t have to “cover” the Earth like filling a teacup, just douse the earth as giant donut-shaped “waves of translation” would have swept along in tsunami style. Destruction would have been axial as shown in patterns of animal extinctions. Mountains would have lifted afterwards as ice caps melted and weight spread to other areas. And what does the evidence show? Animal skeletons smashed apart, not sinking into hypothetical mire and becoming fossilized whole. So can Noah’s universally-remembered flood have been 12,000 years ago? And can the detailed specifications in the Bible for Noah’s Ark be true? Something big happened. Every culture remembers it, so what happens after the Bible is supposedly discredited, will we have to start defacing clay tablets to remove all trace?
As one may have noticed, the ancients weren’t very creative. They hung on to stories, however corrupted, and moderns interpret them, just like Schliemann found Troy. What now? No peer reviewed article said Troy should be there but he found it. Science, real science, is in flux. This finger, and the many other human body parts found in carboniferous strata, should not be there according to the consensus-forcing fascists who control the purse strings of academia. But here it is.
No flood in 10,000 years from tree rings? How about a flood 12,000 years ago when something really big happened, like a pole shift that eradicated 40 million animals? And the volume of water wouldn’t have to “cover” the Earth like filling a teacup, just douse the earth as giant donut-shaped “waves of translation” would have swept along in tsunami style. Destruction would have been axial as shown in patterns of animal extinctions. Mountains would have lifted afterwards as ice caps melted and weight spread to other areas. And what does the evidence show? Animal skeletons smashed apart, not sinking into hypothetical mire and becoming fossilized whole. So can Noah’s universally-remembered flood have been 12,000 years ago? And can the detailed specifications in the Bible for Noah’s Ark be true? Something big happened. Every culture remembers it, so what happens after the Bible is supposedly discredited, will we have to start defacing clay tablets to remove all trace?
J
johnnyjones
Guest
The Pope is saying what he feels and that it is admisable to accept Genesis as non literal. In addition the cathecism says that the church take Genesis symbolically. But our church is open minded and does not say you can not accept Genesis as literal as many have that have gone before us. I simply show support for the creation account and how it can be reasonably accepted by pointing out the thigs I have from my last post.
We are “challenged” on both fronts. You must lose your knee jerk reaction and stop insisting based seemingly on anything literal that all Catholics who embrace Genesis and other miracles of the OT are desiring another denomination. This is a problem on this forum. When the church has a view that is not a mandate, we are free to consider with our God given brains other outlooks that do not conflict with the magesterium.
Answering a question with a question is not a debate. You skipped over the logical points I made and went right into a non binding Pope question. I apologize if you think I offended you in the past, but I felt wronged as well. I regulary defend Catholic doctrine with scripture, there are just some major things that I lean literal on because I recognize the power of God possibly in a different way than you.
- Status