Can't resist posting this-Water springs up from ground

[RealityCheck]

Many mistakes here.
It is common opinion of creationism that most or all volcanos came from the flood year.

Really. Common opinion. Hmmm. OPINION. Now you're really in the realm of that sciency stuff. And common. Well I've run into a huge number of creationists here and none have ever mentioned this.

How about you explain how a three mile high volcano rises up suddenly during a massive flood. In a year.

The great mts of today did not exist for the very reason of there origin. They are the result of colliding continents. Everywhere it is this way on earth.

Colliding continents. So the continents were separate before the flood, yes? Then what was between them?

Oh I dunno... maybe oceans?

The Ark did not land on Mt Ararat but only in the mountains of the nation of Ararat. Picking the biggest mt was a later invention of the locals.

Nation of Ararat. Interesting. Because after being flooded for over a year, such a nation would cease to exist.

And didn't you say earlier that the mountains didn't exist?

The oceans were created during the flood year. Before that just a single land mass need be seen.

Single land mass = no continents.

 

[Vene]

Many mistakes here.
It is common opinion of creationism that most or all volcanos came from the flood year.
The great mts of today did not exist for the very reason of there origin. They are the result of colliding continents. Everywhere it is this way on earth.
The Ark did not land on Mt Ararat but only in the mountains of the nation of Ararat. Picking the biggest mt was a later invention of the locals.

The oceans were created during the flood year. Before that just a single land mass need be seen.

Evidence, do you have any?

 

[Morcova]

Apparently his city isn't missing any sewage.

Besides, per the man, the water is clean.

I'm sure he hit an underground spring. I'm glad that MOST people could smile at this.

Shame on those of you who have absolutely NO sense of humor.

There has to be something funny for there to be humor.

You posted this as if it was something new, or mystical.

It's neither.

 

[Morcova]

Of course, the funniest thing is that every single post trying to explain why there is water springing up out of the earth kind of defeats their own argument of there is no water in the earth.

(Ducking under a bullet proof glass).

Why lie about others arguments? Nobody has said there is no water in the earth.

 

[juvenissun]

Clearly the newsstory was of limited detail. Probably a karst system because it was Florida (?) Who knows?

If it was spontaneously flowing upwards against apparent gradient it might have had some additional head to drive it up.

More like an artesian aquifer system:

You have made an unnecessary long argument.

Let me go back to your earlier illustration: In the above diagram, there will be no water in the referred aquifer layer (sandstone in the diagram) if it were a limestone layer. And there will be no Karst dissolution in the ground. A Karst condition could be established right at the exposed area if the water in the shallow ground could find an outlet near the surface, such as a lower elevation spring. That is it. No artesian welling.

Limestone will stop to dissolve slightly below the water table. A normal Karst system start to develop from surface, not from ground. It is a open-to-air system.

 

[RobertByers]

Really. Common opinion. Hmmm. OPINION. Now you're really in the realm of that sciency stuff. And common. Well I've run into a huge number of creationists here and none have ever mentioned this.

How about you explain how a three mile high volcano rises up suddenly during a massive flood. In a year.



Colliding continents. So the continents were separate before the flood, yes? Then what was between them?

Oh I dunno... maybe oceans?



Nation of Ararat. Interesting. Because after being flooded for over a year, such a nation would cease to exist.

And didn't you say earlier that the mountains didn't exist?



Single land mass = no continents.

Come on girl.
The land mass sepated during the flood year. Then this created all the great volcanos because of the great movement of the dividing land.
The nation of Ararat was after the flood and only a reference for the bible.
The mts of Ararat likewise were created, probably, by the moving land masses apart
Remember that the creatures of the sea had to be destroyed too. God just saved a remnant.

 

[RealityCheck]

Come on girl.
The land mass sepated during the flood year. Then this created all the great volcanos because of the great movement of the dividing land.
The nation of Ararat was after the flood and only a reference for the bible.
The mts of Ararat likewise were created, probably, by the moving land masses apart
Remember that the creatures of the sea had to be destroyed too. God just saved a remnant.

Can't tell if you're being serious or you're being paroditic.

 

[Vene]

Has Rob Byers posted a single citation to any of his claims on any thread?

 

[thaumaturgy]

You have made an unnecessary long argument.

Not really. I'm just being thorough. It comes with getting several college degrees in an area.

Let me go back to your earlier illustration: In the above diagram, there will be no water in the referred aquifer layer (sandstone in the diagram) if it were a limestone layer.

So you've never heard of a karst aquifer?

Here's a definition from the KY Geo Survey:

Technical Definition of Karst Aquifer*:
A body of soluble rock that conducts water principally via enhanced (conduit or tertiary) porosity formed by the dissolution of the rock. The aquifers are commonly structured as a branching network of tributary conduits, which connect together to drain a groundwater basin and discharge to a perennial spring.

Dr. Steve Worthington, independent geologist, personal communication, 2002(SOURCE)

And there will be no Karst dissolution in the ground. A Karst condition could be established right at the exposed area if the water in the shallow ground could find an outlet near the surface, such as a lower elevation spring. That is it. No artesian welling.

Remember, we are not necessarily talking about formation of the cave (speleogenesis) here. We are, however, talking about an open, permeable porous rock body that can be filled with water.

Here's a link to an article on Karst Speleogenesis just to cover all bases. But that is in no way a necessary condition for what I'm talking about.

Remember, if a karst unit can fall within the water table it can be partially or completely filled.

It doesn't have to be during karst formation:

As groundwater levels in an area drop, more and more of the underground passage becomes air filled. When it is sufficiently air filled, springs become cave entrances, passable by humans. Other voids never develop a natural opening, and are intersected by drilling, notably of wells looking for water.(SOURCE)

It can happen AFTER karst formation. Groundwater levels can change.

Limestone will stop to dissolve slightly below the water table. A normal Karst system start to develop from surface, not from ground. It is a open-to-air system.

And, again, I'm not talking about necessarily during speleogenesis.

Please address issues like THIS KARST AQUIFER in Florida.

OBVIOUSLY karst can and does carry water long after the caves are formed. And since artesian systems have nothing to do with the nature of the aquifer and everything to do with the hydrostatic head arrangement, I still see that you have not provided any necessary and sufficient condition that would render a karst feature completely incongruous with an artesian system.

If you would provide a reference or something like that I would gladly read it. I will not, however, just "take your word for it".

You see, Juvenissun, this came up previously. I am what is called a scientist and as such, I learned that one requires multiple lines of evidence to come to an understanding. If you fail to provide any here as well, I'll just go merrily on my way.

The only difference between our arguments is that I have, at least, been disciplined enough to attempt to support my contentions.

This is how scientists debate an issue.

This will come in handy for you should you go on for a graduate degree or ever have to present information at a national meeting like at the GSA.

 

[RangerJoe]

Except that it doesn't work that way. "Flood Geology" is incapable of explaining countless features that have been found all around the earth. Its proponents cannot even reasonably explain where the water went or even where the water came from. If you say it came from underground, you certainly can't say it went back there because it just isn't there. The volume that would be required for a global flood covering Mount Everest is so enormous that no amount of hand-waving will let you escape from the simple reality that the water had to go somewhere when it was all over. It cannot be underground - we'd find it.

Flood geology proponents also believe that they have evidence of quick fossilization and other "fast geological change." But, it turns out, they don't. Real geology already more than adequately explains such things and does so without violating the most basic piece of evidence that flood geologists ignore - radiometric dating. That's another area that flood geologists simply wave their hands and say "it's not reliable." But never is an alternative dating method offered! The only dating system that Flood geologists point to is the Bible - which, it should be noted, contains no explicit timeline of events in Genesis. (Which is why creationists always disagree about how old the earth is!)



But not in the ways you think it does.



Yes... yes, actually they are.



This is all a load of you know what. Taking a position and then pretending it has support is ludicrous. It only plays well to those who already believe but waver in the face of reason, logic, and evidence. Those that already put more stock in reality than mythology laugh at this kind of garbage.

I like you!

 

[Psudopod]

Come on girl.
The land mass sepated during the flood year. Then this created all the great volcanos because of the great movement of the dividing land.
The nation of Ararat was after the flood and only a reference for the bible.
The mts of Ararat likewise were created, probably, by the moving land masses apart
Remember that the creatures of the sea had to be destroyed too. God just saved a remnant.

Saying something does not make it true. Got any evidence?

 

[RealityCheck]

I like you!

Join the fan club.

 

[juvenissun]

The only difference between our arguments is that I have, at least, been disciplined enough to attempt to support my contentions.

This is how scientists debate an issue.

We are talking about limestone. Why did you cite all the references and diagrams about sandstone for the argument? What kind of argument is that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can't tell if you're being serious or you're being paroditic.

Poe's Law Strikes Again.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

We are talking about limestone. Why did you cite all the references and diagrams about sandstone for the argument? What kind of argument is that?

What are you even talking about? He posted that as an example of an artesian aquifer, in which case lithology doesn't matter. All three sources in his last post were focused on karst geology.

I don't understand what your argument is anymore. You're fairly uncoherent. Are you arguing that karst can't produce an artesian spring? Or that karst systems can't form at the surface? Please focus your argument, please.

If you don't mind my asking, do you have a degree in an earth science of some sort?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Do you have one? Why would a degree matter? A geology major from a college is pretty ignorant on geology. Even a Ph.D. is not much better.

I will in a matter of months. And a degree matters because it indicates a level of competence a person has in the particular subject. If you don't have a degree, chances are I (along with most of the rest of the degreed geosciences community) know a whole lot more about the subject than you do. Are you trying to tell me that you know more about geology than somebody with a doctorate? I think not.

At any rate, you didn't answer any of the questions in my post, so here they are again:

What are you even talking about? He posted that as an example of an artesian aquifer, in which case lithology doesn't matter. All three sources in his last post were focused on karst geology.

I don't understand what your argument is anymore. You're fairly uncoherent. Are you arguing that karst can't produce an artesian spring? Or that karst systems can't form at the surface? Please focus your argument, please.

Feel free to anwser them in a reasonable manner, or just continue to dodge the subject. Your choice.

 

[juvenissun]

Are you arguing that karst can't produce an artesian spring?

"artesian spring" is an awkward term. Strictly speaking, it is a wrong term.

But, if I understand your question, then, most likely, it won't.

Or that karst systems can't form at the surface?

This is not a question a BS in geology should phrase. It is a wrong question.

-------

That was what I meant. A BS in geology is pretty ignorant in geology.

 

[thaumaturgy]

We are talking about limestone. Why did you cite all the references and diagrams about sandstone for the argument? What kind of argument is that?

I believe many of the citations were in relation to karstic limestone.

Again, I am sorry if references and support for an argument bother you. I can't help but notice, as usual, you provide almost nothing in support of your contentions.

I have provided my side of the debate and you have provided virtually nothing but your opinion.

Even if you were correct on some point here, I don't have any proof that you are, nor does anyone else. So far my side of the debate has a bit more background than yours.

 

[thaumaturgy]

"artesian spring" is an awkward term. Strictly speaking, it is a wrong term.

Do you know what an artesian spring is? Why is is a "wrong" term?

This is not a question a BS in geology should phrase. It is a wrong question.

-------

That was what I meant. A BS in geology is pretty ignorant in geology.

Considering you have almost never supported any of your points with a significant amount of background I should think maybe you'd do well to get a BS degree.

At least then you'd understand how science is done. You don't just pontificate. You develop an hypothesis and then you support your hypothesis. You are free to show your own experiments or experiments of others. But you MUST show something.

All you seem to provide is your opinion.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you trying to tell me that you know more about geology than somebody with a doctorate? I think not.

Monkey,
I have a doctorate and I've been attempting for the past month or two to get Juvenissun to settle on a topic long enough to support any of his contentions. He engaged me and a couple of other geoscientists in a game of "conceptual Whack-a-mole" a few threads back on water for the Flood. He made a couple of contentions, when asked to support his claims or explain the details he dodged and weaved. Or he simply restated his points without providing support or details.

After he was pushed to the wall a couple times on this, he ultimately got pretty nasty toward those of us with degrees.

I honestly cannot tell if Juvenissun has a real college degree or not. He uses a large number of technical geologic terms, but his total lack of understanding of how to convince someone of his point (ie defending his point) indicates that he has never had to defend a thesis or dissertation.

So if he has a college degree it is an associates or bachelors. Even then, I can't imagine he interacted much in class if his usual modus operandi is any indication of how he defended his points.

At any rate, you didn't answer any of the questions in my post, so here they are again:

Don't be surprised if he changes the subject.

Ultimately he'll likely resort to THIS type of comment if it veers over to religion and geology. Check it out.