Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Do rivers erode through mountains?

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2008, 1:48 am

CanyonWind wrote:
Maybe he's got an ulterior motive for encouraging you to prove that something you have to say might possibly have any value.

Like he's hoping for a cut of the money when you win your Nobel Prize for proving that you know more than every scientist in the world.


What's up with the sarcasm? My question is serious:

"Do you actually want answers, or do you intend just to change my viewpoint?"

Really though, if a person wants to know something they must seek it out. Who is intellectually lazy enough to have someone do all the research for them? A child. Is Orwell a child? I think he claims to be studying psychology/physics/etc whenever he wants to boast of his ego as well as his supposed argument from authority, which are things the intellectually *mature* usually do.

Him not being intellectually immature would lead to the conclusion that he has already made up his mind on the subject and only seeks further input for the purposes of verbal negation and intellectual snobbery along with a side of "you didn't convince me!" as if that were possible.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2008, 2:01 am

twoshots wrote:
TANGENT!
Quote:
The Arun River flows south past Mount Everest in a water gap that is over 6 km (4 miles) deep.

This is almost certainly false by any reasonable definition of "deep". A 6K deep gorge would be amazing, as this vertical relief would be in a class with the worlds tallest mountains (hint: even Everest only rises ~4km from its base, and in point of fact even Denali does not rise 6K, though it comes close), and following the Arun River in google earth, I have found no such vertical rise.

Overall, the quoted article does not display even a passing familiarity with geological theories of water gaps. Their cause is as Monty has described already. (We have a lovely little gap around here, and the ridge and valley Appalachians are full of them so I've felt compelled to research it.)


If Everest rises only ~4000 meters from its base and Everest is 8,850 meters above sea level,
then the base is ~5000 meters above sea level.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Jun 2008, 7:24 am

The flood theory doesn’t make sense. Floods tend to create box-shaped gouges in the terrain with vertical walls and a flat bottom filled with sediment.

Image

V-shaped gouges with intricate side canyon systems wouldn’t arise from a single massive inundation. Only slow erosion can create such detailed carvings.

Image



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

03 Jun 2008, 8:28 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What's up with the sarcasm? My question is serious:

"Do you actually want answers, or do you intend just to change my viewpoint?"

Really though, if a person wants to know something they must seek it out. Who is intellectually lazy enough to have someone do all the research for them? A child. Is Orwell a child? I think he claims to be studying psychology/physics/etc whenever he wants to boast of his ego as well as his supposed argument from authority, which are things the intellectually *mature* usually do.

Him not being intellectually immature would lead to the conclusion that he has already made up his mind on the subject and only seeks further input for the purposes of verbal negation and intellectual snobbery along with a side of "you didn't convince me!" as if that were possible.

I suppose my answer to your question would be that I am attempting to point out that you have no answers to bring forward, and hopefully by making that evident would cause you to at least reconsider your viewpoint in light of reality. I haven't made any claims in regards to psychology, and have only studied physics on a very basic level (equivalent to two semesters of college physics for science majors outside of engineering fields). Still, in terms of level of education I am probably ahead of you, and the ideas you put forward really don't even hold up against basic high school-level science. My request for you to post research isn't so much intellectual laziness as a challenge for you to show that you have some basis for what you're saying. Also, it's not really laziness to refuse to look for something that doesn't exist (ie a way to reconcile YEC claims with basic science), it's simple pragmatism.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

03 Jun 2008, 8:42 am

Also, please stop posting these creationist threads in current events. They belong in PPR, or at a huge stretch Computers, Math, Science, and Technology. They certainly do not belong here.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Xelebes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

03 Jun 2008, 9:35 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5777

BTW: The modern view of the Flood by Creationists who accept a global flood is that it was a tectonic event. The majority of the water came from the Ocean which had far less salinity as the observed rates display.


Latest theory was that it was the ice-locked lake of Lake Agassiz (think of a larger version of Lake Winnipeg consuming Churchill Lake, Lake Winnipegosis, Lake of the Woods and Lake Manitoba that burst when the ice jam broke through and spilled out into the Hudson Bay. That's what the geologists are speculating.



CanyonWind
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,656
Location: West of the Great Divide

03 Jun 2008, 9:59 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Really though, if a person wants to know something they must seek it out. Who is intellectually lazy enough to have someone do all the research for them?


Like maybe finding out what geologists have to say about geology, what the facts are, what their interpretations are based on, and what they disagree about.

Instead of having biblicalgeology.net and creationontheweb.com and similar places as your only sources of information.


_________________
They murdered boys in Mississippi. They shot Medgar in the back.
Did you say that wasn't proper? Did you march out on the track?
You were quiet, just like mice. And now you say that we're not nice.
Well thank you buddy for your advice...
-Malvina


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

03 Jun 2008, 1:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Do you actually want answers, or do you intend just to change my viewpoint?


You might want to ask that of yourself.


Stop posting these in news and current events. They're not new, they're not news-worthy, they're certainly not current, but they are spam-like and annoying. Put them in PPR if you're after a religious debate. :roll:

It's getting boring.

Also, try looking at some scientific research and websites if you want to talk science. I think the URLs of the ones you've posted say it all.


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

03 Jun 2008, 2:10 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
TANGENT!
Quote:
The Arun River flows south past Mount Everest in a water gap that is over 6 km (4 miles) deep.

This is almost certainly false by any reasonable definition of "deep". A 6K deep gorge would be amazing, as this vertical relief would be in a class with the worlds tallest mountains (hint: even Everest only rises ~4km from its base, and in point of fact even Denali does not rise 6K, though it comes close), and following the Arun River in google earth, I have found no such vertical rise.

Overall, the quoted article does not display even a passing familiarity with geological theories of water gaps. Their cause is as Monty has described already. (We have a lovely little gap around here, and the ridge and valley Appalachians are full of them so I've felt compelled to research it.)


If Everest rises only ~4000 meters from its base and Everest is 8,850 meters above sea level,
then the base is ~5000 meters above sea level.

That's about right yes.

I suppose we could make sense of his statement if we counted the depth of the gap as the vertical difference between Arun river and the very top of the nearest Really Freaking Tall Mountains (RFTMs) on either side. Makalu is as close as any peak that could possibly yield the desired height, for the west side of the river, but the problem is that there isn't anything tall enough on the east side except Kanchenjunga which is separated from Arun by a low ridge line and another valley, yielding what can only be described as a butt load of distance between Arun and Kanchenjunga. And here Makalu wasn't that close to begin with. Anyway, I think we're stretching the definition of the term deep, but I guess you could look at it that way. Considering that pretty much any other mountains in the vicinity won't cut it, saying the gap is that deep doesn't strike me as accurate.

Umm. Anyway. Something meaningful to add to this thread.
Orwell wrote:
Not really. Nuclear physics (calculated and experimentally determined radioactive half-lives) contradicts ideas of a Young Earth, as does the fact that we see light originating from sources well over 6000 light-years away. Well, I suppose in the latter case it is only trig OR the speed of light that needs to be wrong. So, either explain the mistakes mathematicians have been making or find out why the entire field of theoretical physics for almost the past century is wrong in its ideas about light. Dismissive comments like that one only annoy me, as you continue to show yourself to be unwilling to look at any actual science. Can you reconcile YEC ideas with basic physics? If so, I will be quite impressed, because many people more intelligent than yourself have tried and failed.

I'm not sure the starlight thing works as well as you think. Parallax can only be used to measure stars that are so far. I'm not remembering what the cut off is before you need to start using something else (a kind variable star I believe is used, also redshift for more distant things), so you would only need to reject much of modern cosmology and astronomy, assuming that you can't measure by parallax something 6K ly away.

Anyone know what the most distant thing you can measure the distance to by parallax would be? :?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


jrknothead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423

03 Jun 2008, 2:27 pm

shouldn't this go in the religious debate forum? I mean, seriously, i don't consider creationweb a legitimate news source...



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2008, 2:32 pm

twoshots wrote:
I'm not sure the starlight thing works as well as you think. Parallax can only be used to measure stars that are so far. I'm not remembering what the cut off is before you need to start using something else (a kind variable star I believe is used, also redshift for more distant things), so you would only need to reject much of modern cosmology and astronomy, assuming that you can't measure by parallax something 6K ly away.

Anyone know what the most distant thing you can measure the distance to by parallax would be? :?


I have no problem with distant starlight. Lots of way exist for you to accurately measure it. Dr Russell Humphreys had proposed a first order solution to it that falls out of General Relativity and it has since been refined. If you want to see the video presentation of this, I would recommend it.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2008, 2:35 pm

jrknothead wrote:
shouldn't this go in the religious debate forum? I mean, seriously, i don't consider creationweb a legitimate news source...


Well, I do consider it thus.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Jun 2008, 2:39 pm

Xelebes wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5777

BTW: The modern view of the Flood by Creationists who accept a global flood is that it was a tectonic event. The majority of the water came from the Ocean which had far less salinity as the observed rates display.


Latest theory was that it was the ice-locked lake of Lake Agassiz (think of a larger version of Lake Winnipeg consuming Churchill Lake, Lake Winnipegosis, Lake of the Woods and Lake Manitoba that burst when the ice jam broke through and spilled out into the Hudson Bay. That's what the geologists are speculating.


The end of the ice age has probably caused a few such features.



LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

03 Jun 2008, 4:06 pm

Look, it's fine if you want to make these threads, that's cool, but it isn't news and it isn't a current event, so it's annoying when you open it expecting legitimate new news and find old new-Earth creationist theory instead, this is the wrong forum for it. Please put it in PPR - I come here for news, and go to PPR for religious debate; there's a reason they're apart.


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


Xelebes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

04 Jun 2008, 11:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
jrknothead wrote:
shouldn't this go in the religious debate forum? I mean, seriously, i don't consider creationweb a legitimate news source...


Well, I do consider it thus.


Maybe a discussion is needed on the defintion of the term, "credible news source."



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

05 Jun 2008, 9:25 am

Xelebes wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
jrknothead wrote:
shouldn't this go in the religious debate forum? I mean, seriously, i don't consider creationweb a legitimate news source...


Well, I do consider it thus.


Maybe a discussion is needed on the defintion of the term, "credible news source."


No, Stephen Colbert has already defined 'newsiness' and 'truthiness'. Truthiness: "things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts."