 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
twoshots
Honorary Vertebrate
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: NJ
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
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.)
_________________
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country."
-Milton Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 1513
Location: North West United States
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
V-shaped gouges with intricate side canyon systems wouldn’t arise from a single massive inundation. Only slow erosion can create such detailed carvings.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 19
Posts: 4457
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 19
Posts: 4457
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Xelebes
Velociraptor
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Age: 23
Posts: 492
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:35 am Post subject: Re: Do rivers erode through mountains? |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CanyonWind
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 12, 2006
Posts: 1394
Location: West of the Great Divide
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Thou out of heaven's benediction comest
To the warm sun.
Approach, thou beacon to this under globe.
Nothing almost sees miracles but misery.
- from King Lear |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2630
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. 
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...
New Blog: http://onelittleaspergian.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Honorary Vertebrate
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2185
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? 
_________________
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country."
-Milton Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
jrknothead
News Junkie
Joined: Aug 04, 2007
Age: 42
Posts: 1110
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shouldn't this go in the religious debate forum? I mean, seriously, i don't consider creationweb a legitimate news source...
_________________
Never let your schooling interfere with your education. - Samuel Clemens |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
iamnotaparakeet
Alpha Parrot
Joined: Aug 01, 2007
Age: 23
Posts: 11784
Location: Domus Psittacorum
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Do rivers erode through mountains? |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
Don't look back, because infinity is waiting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LeKiwi
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 2630
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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...
New Blog: http://onelittleaspergian.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
