Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind. Maybe they just aren't trying hard enough. Of course, there are verified records in the earth itself that support localized floods that occurred naturally with no hint of divine involvement. Such studies have already been posted here several times, for those interested in educating themselves. I guess creationists will have to look elsewhere for proof of their genocidal deity.

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind. Maybe they just aren't trying hard enough. Of course, there are verified records in the earth itself that support localized floods that occurred naturally with no hint of divine involvement. Such studies have already been posted here several times, for those interested in educating themselves. I guess creationists will have to look elsewhere for proof of their genocidal deity.

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

I'm not derailing anything. You made an extraordinary claim, not me. There are no reliable records of a planet consuming flood. That's why they are called myths. Glacial erratics are well documented. And using floods to support an argument for divine meddling is quite a leap in logic by itself. Let's not pretend this is just about geology, your agenda is poorly hidden.

glacial erratics

Can you demonstrate that these formations are not glacial erratics?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It's a shame no one here can provide any empirical evidence of a global flood or a god of any kind. Maybe they just aren't trying hard enough. Of course, there are verified records in the earth itself that support localized floods that occurred naturally with no hint of divine involvement. Such studies have already been posted here several times, for those interested in educating themselves. I guess creationists will have to look elsewhere for proof of their genocidal deity.

Why the obfuscation? Why the strawman argument?

Provide YOUR evidence that erratics are true and demonstrable AND REPEATABLE - as in falsifiable, otherwise, admit that it's an erroneous assumption that needs to be corrected.

I've provided ample evidence of the POWER of water over VLBs. Show, demonstrate to us the ability of glaciers or ICE SHEETS to SCOOP UP (erratics) very large boulders (VLBs) and deposit them to another location.


So again, stick to the topic at hand, don't derail the subject, please.

I'm not derailing anything. You made an extraordinary claim, not me. There are no reliable records of a planet consuming flood. That's why they are called myths. Glacial erratics are well documented. And using floods to support an argument for divine meddling is quite a leap in logic by itself. Let's not pretend this is just about geology, your agenda is poorly hidden.

As you said:

Glacial erratics are well documented.

If so, then demonstrate, prove it's falsifiable?

Don't give assumption, like the one quoted below from your link:

erratic ... transported by a glacier to a different area;...

... Glacial erratics can be any size from small pebbles to large boulders the size of a house.

Glacial Erratic An erratic is a piece of rock that has been eroded and transported by a glacier to a different area; it is left behind when the ice melts. Glacial erratics give us information about the direction of ice movement and distances of transport. Glacial erratics can be any size from small pebbles to large boulders the size of a house.

www.nr.gov.nl.ca...&en/geosurvey/education/features/glacial/

Demonstrate it like so:

THE POWER OF WATER





If you can't do it, then admit to it.

a reply to: edmc^2

It has been pointed out multiple times, glacial erratics is a process of thousands of years. It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature. But there is plenty of geological context supporting the phenomena. You just have to read it instead of watching it. like I said, you should demonstrate that those formations are not a result of glacial erratics. Unless you can't?

I just looked online and there are no videos of a god sending a global flood to drown the Earth. I couldn't find any videos of an actual god at all. No footage or pictures or even a social media account. So I guess that settles the question, by your logic. Oh well.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

It has been pointed out multiple times, glacial erratics is a process of thousands of years. It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature. But there is plenty of geological context supporting the phenomena. You just have to read it instead of watching it. like I said, you should demonstrate that those formations are not a result of glacial erratics. Unless you can't?

I just looked online and there are no videos of a god sending a global flood to drown the Earth. I couldn't find any videos of an actual god at all. No footage or pictures or even a social media account. So I guess that settles the question, by your logic. Oh well.

Since,

It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature.

How do you know then that erratics are true?

Oh?

You just have to read it instead of watching it.

I see, "read it instead of watching". Then after reading it without any empirical evidence - but assumptions, what's next?

Have faith in it? That, it's true? But what if it's not?

Hmmm...

Interesting, so you're a person of (blind) faith. Congratulations.

So how about that empirical evidence.

here's one recently conducted:

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

ETA - your china claim = incompatible with your hebrew claim

They are not identical, which would make sense because that imply involve plagiarism. Instead, they are very similar, indicating a common description of the same event with slightly different perspectives. To the Chinese, Nuwa and Fuxi were the only ones to survive The Great Flood and they had to procreate to repopulate the world after everyone else was destroyed.

Historians also cite the the Chinese flood account to the 3rd century (3000-2000) BC, which is compatible with the Hebrew and Sumerian global flood date of around 2300 BC.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

It has been pointed out multiple times, glacial erratics is a process of thousands of years. It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature. But there is plenty of geological context supporting the phenomena. You just have to read it instead of watching it. like I said, you should demonstrate that those formations are not a result of glacial erratics. Unless you can't?

I just looked online and there are no videos of a god sending a global flood to drown the Earth. I couldn't find any videos of an actual god at all. No footage or pictures or even a social media account. So I guess that settles the question, by your logic. Oh well.

Since,

It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature.

How do you know then that erratics are true?

Oh?

You just have to read it instead of watching it.

I see, "read it instead of watching". Then after reading it without any empirical evidence - but assumptions, what's next?

Have faith in it? That, it's true? But what if it's not?

Hmmm...

Interesting, so you're a person of (blind) faith. Congratulations.

So how about that empirical evidence.

here's one recently conducted:

By your use of the words 'assumptions' and 'blind faith' it appears you have done exactly zero research into the science of glacial erratics and you are perfectly happy being a geological ignoramus. I can't do anything about that, free will being inviolable and all. Certainly does not reflect on the capacity of scientific study to provide accurate solutions.

And your lack of videos proved to me there never was a god to cause any flooding. Nor was there a flood, or any planet or people before the invention of photography, since picture evidence is the only kind that counts here.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

It has been pointed out multiple times, glacial erratics is a process of thousands of years. It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature. But there is plenty of geological context supporting the phenomena. You just have to read it instead of watching it. like I said, you should demonstrate that those formations are not a result of glacial erratics. Unless you can't?

I just looked online and there are no videos of a god sending a global flood to drown the Earth. I couldn't find any videos of an actual god at all. No footage or pictures or even a social media account. So I guess that settles the question, by your logic. Oh well.

Since,

It is impossible to make a time-lapse video of that nature.

How do you know then that erratics are true?

Oh?

You just have to read it instead of watching it.

I see, "read it instead of watching". Then after reading it without any empirical evidence - but assumptions, what's next?

Have faith in it? That, it's true? But what if it's not?

Hmmm...

Interesting, so you're a person of (blind) faith. Congratulations.

So how about that empirical evidence.

here's one recently conducted:

By your use of the words 'assumptions' and 'blind faith' it appears you have done exactly zero research into the science of glacial erratics and you are perfectly happy being a geological ignoramus. I can't do anything about that, free will being inviolable and all. Certainly does not reflect on the capacity of scientific study to provide accurate solutions.

And your lack of videos proved to me there never was a god to cause any flooding. Nor was there a flood, or any planet or people before the invention of photography, since picture evidence is the only kind that counts here.

To the contrary, look at the evidence I presented. They are incontrovertible. The video alone gives a powerful demonstration of the locomotive power of water. Now if you want math and physics to back it up, we can go there. Let's start with this formula F= ma and apply it to both agents of locomotion with kinetic and potential energy in mind. Which agent do you think will has great potential?

Now, we can add the viscosity/density of water vs ice formation - calculate the atomic bonding and the energy locked within the bonds - which element do you think has enormous force?

We can also calculate the P exerted by each agent on an object. Vid below shows you how to do this:





Force of a Tsunami on a horizontal plate:



Here's a hs video for you:



let me know if you want more - perhaps an in-depth study of fluid dynamics/mechanics/hydro dynamics?

Sample calculations:

1. A rectangular tank has a height of 2 m and a bottom measuring 4 m long by 3 m wide and is filled with water. Find the force exerted by the water on the bottom of the tank.

Solution The pressure of the water on the bottom of the tank is (1 ton/m3)(2 m) = 2 ton/m2. The force exerted by the water on the bottom of the tank is F = (pressure) x (area of bottom) = (2 ton/m2)(4 m)(3 m) = 24 tons.

www.phengkimving.com...

oh and btw - what's up with the strawman hat?

Topic is ERRATICS.

a reply to: edmc^2

Glacial erratics has been proven, and you didn't start the topic or read any of the posts from cooperton or you would already understand the point of this topic being raised.

None of those videos shows a cosmic wizard creating a flood or a flood literally drowning an entire planet. So by the logic exhibited here, you have no evidence empirical or otherwise unless you can show us a direct example of the events I just described.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Glacial erratics has been proven, and you didn't start the topic or read any of the posts from cooperton or you would already understand the point of this topic being raised.

None of those videos shows a cosmic wizard creating a flood or a flood literally drowning an entire planet. So by the logic exhibited here, you have no evidence empirical or otherwise unless you can show us a direct example of the events I just described.

hahaha, I now know you don't understand fluid dynamics/fluid mechanics.

Sorry dude, this is out of your league. It's like arguing with a child.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Glacial erratics has been proven, and you didn't start the topic or read any of the posts from cooperton or you would already understand the point of this topic being raised.

None of those videos shows a cosmic wizard creating a flood or a flood literally drowning an entire planet. So by the logic exhibited here, you have no evidence empirical or otherwise unless you can show us a direct example of the events I just described.

hahaha, I now know you don't understand fluid dynamics/fluid mechanics.

Sorry dude, this is out of your league. It's like arguing with a child.

So you don't actually have any convincing records or footage to support your claims. Nor does your math demonstrate a planet consuming flood or a sorcerer who can produce such floods.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Why couldn't it be both glacial and water? When a glacier calves, it releases a lot of debris into the adjacent waterways. Couldn't a large boulder be embedded in the glacial ice and released during the calving process and pushed downstream by tidal forces?

This video shows the tidal forces, similar to a tsunami, caused by glacial calving - also remember we don't see what's underneath the glacier. Over millions of years, perhaps these giant boulders were under pressure from the ice above and gradually moved downstream with the glacier. A few catastrophic calvings may have released them.

Sure, it's possible but if we apply fluid mechanics to it, it will fail since it lacks the force to carry the weight of say 60-ton boulder - UPHILL or even inland where glaciers are not possible to occur.

You can also consider the cohesion and density, the velocity of ice with its very slow accumulation rate. The mechanics are just not there. Say a 60-ton boulder, when ice forms around it or ice envelopes it, it becomes immovable. Unless something moves the ice sheet (by calving), then it's possible the boulder will/can move. But, the distance covered will be very short, mostly at the base of a mountain or hill or at the edge of the glacier (shown in your vids). If you say it traveled by sea, the problem becomes greater since conditions to preserve the ice sheet is a must otherwise its passenger falls off to the sea. But even if this possible - by some miraculous act, it's NOT the glacier but the outside force that gave momentum to the object. Now we have examples of VLB's scooped up from far away locations and deposited to locations where the weather is too warm for ice sheets to form.



To say it's an erratic is the height of ignorance!


....but the power of water is unmistakable!



Also, if you read ALL the information and study the data on erratics - they have ONE thing in common, they are not based on scientific studies, physics, and engineering but SOLELY based on claims and assumptions.

So, based on the evidence, ERRATICS by its current definition is incorrect.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

Why couldn't it be both glacial and water? When a glacier calves, it releases a lot of debris into the adjacent waterways. Couldn't a large boulder be embedded in the glacial ice and released during the calving process and pushed downstream by tidal forces?

This video shows the tidal forces, similar to a tsunami, caused by glacial calving - also remember we don't see what's underneath the glacier. Over millions of years, perhaps these giant boulders were under pressure from the ice above and gradually moved downstream with the glacier. A few catastrophic calvings may have released them.

Sure, it's possible but if we apply fluid mechanics to it, it will fail since it lacks the force to carry the weight of say 60-ton boulder - UPHILL or even inland where glaciers are not possible to occur.

You can also consider the cohesion and density, the velocity of ice with its very slow accumulation rate. The mechanics are just not there. Say a 60-ton boulder, when ice forms around it or ice envelopes it, it becomes immovable. Unless something moves the ice sheet (by calving), then it's possible the boulder will/can move. But, the distance covered will be very short, mostly at the base of a mountain or hill or at the edge of the glacier (shown in your vids). If you say it traveled by sea, the problem becomes greater since conditions to preserve the ice sheet is a must otherwise its passenger falls off to the sea. But even if this possible - by some miraculous act, it's NOT the glacier but the outside force that gave momentum to the object. Now we have examples of VLB's scooped up from far away locations and deposited to locations where the weather is too warm for ice sheets to form.

To say it's an erratic is the height of ignorance!


....but the power of water is unmistakable!

Also, if you read ALL the information and study the data on erratics - they have ONE thing in common, they are not based on scientific studies, physics, and engineering but SOLELY based on claims and assumptions.

So, based on the evidence, ERRATICS by its current definition is incorrect.

You have literally removed the evidence for glacial erratics and replaced it with dismissive phrases without demonstrating any errors in the science provided. I bet you haven't looked at even one of the numerous sources and examples posted here. Ignoring evidence is just lazy and asinine. The videos of fluid dynamics do not apply to undocumented planet consuming floods for which there is absolutely no geological record. Being theoretically feasible in small scale does not demonstrate historical actuality on a global scale.

a reply to: cooperton

Here is a source on the accuracy and reliability of radiometric dating:

www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

Sources:

The Hebrews, The Chinese, The Incas, The Sumerians, The Greeks, The Hindus, etc, etc, etc

LMAO! Fables and myths aren't scientific evidence!! How do you STILL NOT get this??? There were local floods, not a global one. You literally have no evidence, just BS told to you by religious fundies.

Once again your argument has zero to do with the discussion. I have a source that says humpty dumpty had a great fall.

No They all depict a catastrophic flood that almost wiped out the entirety of life on the planet

Sorry, but exaggerated folklore is not evidence. None of those cultures had ANY CLUE about how big the flood was or what was going on thousands of miles away on other continents. Do you even think before you post? Nobody had any way to know how much of the earth was destroyed or how much life was wiped out.

You were asked to prove they all happened as part of the same event and you deflected. You literally have no argument. If your claim is true, there should be geological evidence that they all happened at the same time. Plus you wouldn't have areas of earth today that haven't been underwater in millions of years.

a reply to: edmc^2

So you completely ignored the FACT that we can study erosion and determine where the rocks came from and that you can't watch something in real time that takes 10,000 years. You are being completely dishonest. Where is your video of a great flood happening in real time? If that's your only standard for believing things, then why do you believe the bible??? Do you have a video of the resurrection or of god? Do you have a video of the creation event? Do you have a video of Jonah living inside of a whale? The double standards here are ridiculous. You only believe science that comes in the form of 5 minute youtube videos, yet for your beliefs you have no standard at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

So you completely ignored the FACT that we can study erosion and determine where the rocks came from and that you can't watch something in real time that takes 10,000 years. You are being completely dishonest. Where is your video of a great flood happening in real time? If that's your only standard for believing things, then why do you believe the bible??? Do you have a video of the resurrection or of god? Do you have a video of the creation event? Do you have a video of Jonah living inside of a whale? The double standards here are ridiculous. You only believe science that comes in the form of 5 minute youtube videos, yet for your beliefs you have no standard at all.

Wow! The strawman argument keeps popping up.

I'll create another thread just for the great flood discussion. But for now, the topic on this thread is erratics. So stick to it if you can -pls.

As to what you said:

So you completely ignored the FACT that we can study erosion and determine where the rocks came from and that you can't watch something in real time that takes 10,000 years.

No. I'm not ignoring the FACTS. In fact, we can study erosion with precision - just like the study of fluid dynamics/mechanics. There's no issue there. The problem is with erratic proponents like you.

All you have are words, but I provided ample evidence of the POWER OF WATER (a al visual/mathematics/physics/engineering) - which you and others ignored and keep ignoring.

Why can't you see the power of water? I wonder, is it because it washes up the idea of erratics?

Hmmm...

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: edmc^2

So you completely ignored the FACT that we can study erosion and determine where the rocks came from and that you can't watch something in real time that takes 10,000 years. You are being completely dishonest. Where is your video of a great flood happening in real time? If that's your only standard for believing things, then why do you believe the bible??? Do you have a video of the resurrection or of god? Do you have a video of the creation event? Do you have a video of Jonah living inside of a whale? The double standards here are ridiculous. You only believe science that comes in the form of 5 minute youtube videos, yet for your beliefs you have no standard at all.

Wow! The strawman argument keeps popping up.

I'll create another thread just for the great flood discussion. But for now, the topic on this thread is erratics. So stick to it if you can -pls.

As to what you said:

So you completely ignored the FACT that we can study erosion and determine where the rocks came from and that you can't watch something in real time that takes 10,000 years.

No. I'm not ignoring the FACTS. In fact, we can study erosion with precision - just like the study of fluid dynamics/mechanics. There's no issue there. The problem is with erratic proponents like you.

All you have are words, but I provided ample evidence of the POWER OF WATER (a al visual/mathematics/physics/engineering) - which you and others ignored and keep ignoring.

Why can't you see the power of water? I wonder, is it because it washes up the idea of erratics?

Hmmm...

Premise of this thread: if glacial erratics can't be proven, then all examples of erratics are the product of a global flood, ergo creationism.

Fact: Glacial erratics are a thoroughly researched and documented natural phenomena. Ergo no wrath of God, no global flood, no smoking gun for creationism.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Here is a source on the accuracy and reliability of radiometric dating:

www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

I have read plenty on how radiometric dating works. The issue I was raising was the inability to determine the initial ratios of these samples - i.e. lead-uranium ratios. There is no accurate way to determine the beginning ratios, it always involves speculation.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Here is a source on the accuracy and reliability of radiometric dating:

www.sciencemeetsreligion.org...

I have read plenty on how radiometric dating works. The issue I was raising was the inability to determine the initial ratios of these samples - i.e. lead-uranium ratios. There is no accurate way to determine the beginning ratios, it always involves speculation.

Most scientists prefer marginal doubt over astronomical doubt. Radiometric dating qualifies for the former, you specialize in the latter. Extraordinary claims and whatnot. And we are talking very marginal doubts in concern to dating. Isotopes don't play that "mysterious ways" game.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Fact: Glacial erratics are a thoroughly researched and documented natural phenomena.

"thoroughly researched and documented" based on what?

Assumptions. That's all you have.

There's not even a mathematical and physical illustration or presentation of it! i.e. how an ice sheet is able to carry a VLB and transport it over long distances.


F = ma will even show you that an erratic object (VLB) is not possible.

But water does.

To illustrate:

Below is one of the widely accepted ICE AGE maps. Notice the boundary. It didn't even reach the African continent,...



... yet we have the so-called "erratics" (VLBs) over there.

Iona Park, Angola Africa - just a sample.



So, how did these "erratics" get there- traveled over to this continent?

The clear answer is the dynamic power of a wave!






So can you even cite just one documented study of your claim - explaining the mechanics of erratics? I'm eager to read it.