The Deep

[AmorFati]

Didn't you know that mainstream geologists are all part of a satanic conspiracy to help provide the necessary time frame for the evil religious theology of biological evolution to sound realistic and probable? They work for the evolutionist biologists. They know all the geological evidence shows the earth to be only 7000 and some odd years old and also shows that it was completely covered by water at one point for over a year and yet they lie to help the scientists in a completely different field pull of their scam. Most of them know deep down that it's just embedded age and not real age ( I mean what could be more obvious then that?) they just wont admit it because they are afraid the evolutionists in the field of biology will get mad at them.

 

[RickG]

This is not a sedimentary issue. Cut it out.

My question was directed to Heissonear who made the claim, not you. So, if you wish to address it, fine. Otherwise, cut the snide remarks.

 

[RickG]

No. By that journalist. I believe he is an evolutionist and flunked his geology class.

Would you mind restating that. You're comments don't seem to be addressing my question.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So which which resultant successions of deposits/strata do you suggest show show what you described?

But we already know that mainstream's allotment of millions of years for strata is certainly not needed to interpret the data.

Simply thousands of years which we know for a fact occurs.

http://cdn.trans-americas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joya-de-Ceren-4_ruins.jpg

Unless you are suggesting the strata ruins are buried in are millions of years old and therefore so are the ruins?

 

[RickG]

But we already know that mainstream's allotment of millions of years for strata is certainly not needed to interpret the data.

Simply thousands of years which we know for a fact occurs.

http://cdn.trans-americas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Joya-de-Ceren-4_ruins.jpg

Unless you are suggesting the strata ruins are buried in are millions of years old and therefore so are the ruins?

Looks like varves. Annual layers. Would you mind providing a source for that picture?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Looks like varves. Annual layers. Would you mind providing a source for that picture?

Joya de Ceren Tazumal El Salvador Pompei of the Americas MayanTrans-Americas Journey

It looks like it is not even a sedimentary deposit. It is pyro-clastic in nature if it is the Pompeii of the West.

ETA: I ran a Google search on the image. I have found that tool very useful when creationists try to post misleading pictures.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Looks like varves. Annual layers. Would you mind providing a source for that picture?

Indeed, annual layers. So, if layering builds this fast in a mere 1000 years, how much should we expect over hundreds of thousands to millions, especially if in a high volcanic period?

Ask the Experts: AIA Archaeology FAQ - Archaeological Institute of America



Don't misunderstand me, I certainly do not advocate a young earth. The simple fact that dinosaurs have been found to depths of 2,460 feet shows it must indeed be older than 6,000 years. I have no problem with an earth billions of years old. The Bible fits well with that interpretation.

But up until a few years ago when all the data started falsifying comet theory, this was the cause of all the water on the earth. As I said, until every probe we sent to comets showed they were hot and dry, not snowballs.

Luckily the geologists are ignoring the cosmologists and are starting a halfway valid model. Now all we need do is wait for them to start adding those electric currents that cause the water production in the first place, just as in the coma of comets (not from its interior).

How does water form? - Curiosity

"To create water, you have to do more than simply mix hydrogen and oxygen molecules. You also have to introduce energy into the equation so that the atoms rearrange to fit together. The process is dangerous, both requiring and releasing substantial amounts of energy, which helps explain why we aren't able to safely produce water on Earth yet. And we still aren't even entirely sure how Earth came to be swimming so greatly in water."

I'm not even saying you need God to explain the water, just science instead of mainstream's Fairie Dust.

Chemical bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction."

Things simply proceed naturally once He set them in motion. And when one considers the proper forces He set in motion, the answers start falling into place.

One can then get rid of perpetual motion machines spinning at the earth's core against friction for billions of years. The source for water. Why the earth and all planets spin in the first place. Why the core is hot, etc. etc.

 

[MikeCarra]

Now all we need do is wait for them to start adding those electric currents that cause the water production in the first place, just as in the coma of comets (not from its interior).

How does water form? - Curiosity

"To create water, you have to do more than simply mix hydrogen and oxygen molecules. You also have to introduce energy into the equation so that the atoms rearrange to fit together. The process is dangerous, both requiring and releasing substantial amounts of energy, which helps explain why we aren't able to safely produce water on Earth yet. And we still aren't even entirely sure how Earth came to be swimming so greatly in water."

I don't understand this claim we can't make water on earth. Have you ever seen a FUEL CELL? They make water from H2 and O2.

Indeed you can mix H2 and O2 in the lab and add a spark to get it over the activation energy and make water.

So we can make water on earth. It's just that it's energetically less economical than getting water from, you know, the ground or streams or lakes.

One can then get rid of perpetual motion machines spinning at the earth's core against friction for billions of years. The source for water. Why the earth and all planets spin in the first place. Why the core is hot, etc. etc.

The findings of the article don't really deal with the heat of the core or the interior of the earth. The earth's interior is hot due to residual heat from the original accretion of the earth and radioactive decay in the interior as well as frictional heating and descent of the dense material that makes up the inner core (Fe and Ni).

 

[MikeCarra]

I can write a better one than that.

Just not in English.

 

[RickG]

Joya de Ceren Tazumal El Salvador Pompei of the Americas MayanTrans-Americas Journey

It looks like it is not even a sedimentary deposit. It is pyro-clastic in nature if it is the Pompeii of the West.

ETA: I ran a Google search on the image. I have found that tool very useful when creationists try to post misleading pictures.

Thanks Subduction Zone. I have to ask, what is it with these people that they have to make stuff up? I would state what I think they are really doing, but then again, that would be a violation of the forum rules.

 

[RickG]

Indeed, annual layers. So, if layering builds this fast in a mere 1000 years, how much should we expect over hundreds of thousands to millions, especially if in a high volcanic period?

To begin with, it takes two layers to make an annual layer, not one, so divide by 2. Then examine more closely and identify those additional layers which may be milti-seasonal. Don't be guilty of doing what creationists wrongly claim scientists do. Also, Subduction Zone just informed me of the source of the picture. The layers are volcanic ash, not varves.

Don't misunderstand me, I certainly do not advocate a young earth. The simple fact that dinosaurs have been found to depths of 2,460 feet shows it must indeed be older than 6,000 years. I have no problem with an earth billions of years old. The Bible fits well with that interpretation.

But up until a few years ago when all the data started falsifying comet theory, this was the cause of all the water on the earth. As I said, until every probe we sent to comets showed they were hot and dry, not snowballs.

Luckily the geologists are ignoring the cosmologists and are starting a halfway valid model. Now all we need do is wait for them to start adding those electric currents that cause the water production in the first place, just as in the coma of comets (not from its interior).

I'm not sure what that rant was all about, but for your information there is an entire field called "Planetary Geology", and most fields of geology require a lot of physics background.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

there is an entire field called "Planetary Geology", and most fields of geology require a lot of physics background.

You mean like understanding radio carbon dating was founded on Fermi's theory of the weak force? Said theory found to violate parity and revised, unlike carbon dating that was based upon it??

Or is that part of physics you don't want to think about?


You mean physics that forbids perpetual machines? Then has one spinning in the center of the earth against friction for 4+ billion years?

So we talking physics or geology or cosmology or Fairie Dust?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like understanding radio carbon dating was founded on Fermi's theory of the weak force? Said theory found to violate parity and revised, unlike carbon dating that was based upon it??

Or is that part of physics you don't want to think about?


You mean physics that forbids perpetual machines? Then has one spinning in the center of the earth against friction for 4+ billion years?

So we talking physics or geology or cosmology or Fairie Dust?

 

[Mainframes]

You mean physics that forbids perpetual machines? Then has one spinning in the center of the earth against friction for 4+ billion years?

Motion driven by the heat derived from radioactive decay. Therefore a constant input of energy driving motion. No physics problems here.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Motion driven by the heat derived from radioactive decay. Therefore a constant input of energy driving motion. No physics problems here.

Or you could use actual physics to solve the problem.

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Induction heating is the process of heating an electrically conducting object (usually a metal) by electromagnetic induction, where eddy currents (also called Foucault currents) are generated within the

[COLOR=#4C4CFF !important]metal[/COLOR]​

and resistance leads to Joule heating of the metal."

But where are the electric currents you ask?

Birkeland current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Auroral Birkeland currents carry about 100,000 amperes during quiet timeshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-7 and more than 1 million

[COLOR=#4C4CFF !important]amperes[/COLOR]​

during geomagnetically disturbed times."


It's that same source that continually surprises you and falsified all your text books, because you continually ignore it.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/scientists-discover-surprise-in-101025


It's those same electric currents from the sun to earth you mislead people by calling them magnetic ropes.

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science


But you have ignored all the science that went before, and instead now use Fairie Dust.

Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Early researchers found that an electric or magnetic field could split radioactive emissions into three types of beams. The rays were given the alphabetic names alpha, beta, and gamma, in order of their ability to penetrate matter."

There is no doubt the core is hot, the only question is the ultimate cause. And since even the emission of radiation is an electrical event, well, I wouldn't put too much faith in your perpetual motion machine theory, requiring no external power source.



But not even having scratched the surface of the earth, you can assure me what occurs in the core? The crust itself is up to 30-40 miles thick and you ain't even been deeper than 7. You are clueless. You are simply using never observed processes (Fairie Dust) when electromagnetic processes are the only way you have ever known it to occur.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current#cite_note-8

 

[Mainframes]

It's not perpetual motion if an energy source is required to drive it. In this case it is radioactive decay. It's like having a battery in a toy. Eventually the radioactive decay will reduce to a level whereby the heating will not be sufficient to keep the core molten.

Why, if electricity and induction are the causes do we not see a molten core in Mercury as it is so close to the sun???

 

[RickG]

You mean like understanding radio carbon dating was founded on Fermi's theory of the weak force? Said theory found to violate parity and revised, unlike carbon dating that was based upon it??

So you quote my comment pointing out that there is an entire field of planetary geology and you post that? What are you talking about?

Or is that part of physics you don't want to think about?

A better question. What in the sand hill are you talking about?

You mean physics that forbids perpetual machines? Then has one spinning in the center of the earth against friction for 4+ billion years?

What? Do you have some medications you need to take?

So we talking physics or geology or cosmology or Fairie Dust?

Fair dust I guess.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So you quote my comment pointing out that there is an entire field of planetary geology and you post that? What are you talking about?



A better question. What in the sand hill are you talking about?




What? Do you have some medications you need to take?



Fair dust I guess.

You said: "but for your information there is an entire field called "Planetary Geology", and most fields of geology require a lot of physics background."

So I am just trying to figure out what physics background you are using in your planetary geology? Because it sure ain't real physics that forbids perpetual motion machines. Nor physics that still uses a falsified theory as it's starting point. Physics updated itself when their theory was falsified, you just continue to use the same ones that relied on those falsified theories.

It's in your planetary geology where you have a magical dynamo spinning at the earth's core to produce the electric currents that create the magnetic field. While at the same time ignoring those electric currents entering and exiting the poles. Ignoring that all electric currents cause Joule heating, cause spin, etc, etc.

Instead you posit some magical dynamo spinning at the earth's core against friction for 4+ billion years. The same thing with Saturn's moon Enceladus. Your heat predictions from tidal heating and radioactive decay were 10 orders of magnitude off.

Of course we then discovered an electric current connecting it to Saturn, but you still use the same old theory that was falsified by the data from probes. Your planetary geology is stuck in a rut because you ignore those electric currents that are everywhere, instead letting cosmologists tell you what is happening, when they don't even have a single correct prediction where probes have been sent.

So just how does a spinning dynamo reverse magnetic direction and reorganize itself? Of course, those secondary currents streams observed on the sun would tell you why some rocks in the earth's crust have magnetic alignments different from the current magnetic direction.

Solar Magnetic Polarity Reversal

Unlike the sun the earth's crust is not fluid and therefore capable of holding a record of those secondary current streams.

 

[RickG]

You said: "but for your information there is an entire field called "Planetary Geology", and most fields of geology require a lot of physics background."

Yes, I provided that information. However, I am not a planetary geologist, nor will I pretend to be knowledgeable in an area in which I do not have an expertise. I only provided that information because you did not appear to be aware of that field in one of your posts.

So I am just trying to figure out what physics background you are using in your planetary geology? Because it sure ain't real physics that forbids perpetual motion machines. Nor physics that still uses a falsified theory as it's starting point. Physics updated itself when their theory was falsified, you just continue to use the same ones that relied on those falsified theories.

I have not previously discussed perpetual motion with you nor do I intend to do so. I believe you have me confused with someone else. Review the thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[NannaNae]

so it proves

the fountains of the deep exists.. and that is what he uses to set his kingdom/ Ezekials temple on a store of freshwater. OH now that interesting hum?


Pro 8:28
When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:



Gen 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Gen 8:2
The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

Rev 14:7
Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters...

Surprise Surprise Surprise..
yes we will be praising him for his fountains of the deep .
Water is just such a precious precious element. we all take it for granted that it will always be there.
I mean there would be no life in earth with out it!!!!



for Noahs flood it says the waters came from above and below..