What is Devil's Tower?

Erfisflat

@evidence, very interesting parable here.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-does-kiowa-story-about-seven-sisters-their-335094

You watch any mud fossil university videos? I tried to contact him, for some reason, he still thinks the earth is a ball. How can you possibly think that mountain sized giants(or bigger) roamed the earth, and it was only 25,000 miles in circumference?!?

someone234

I don't believe in the giants and I definitely don't fear them. I believe humanity conquered them  in the early stages and scared them away to another plane like Jupiter. It seems they are not high-IQ so their size didn't matter too much to us.

BaconToes

I have done some research on this "Devil's Tower", and I have concluded it has definitely nothing to do with mythical beings chopping off the top of trees. Not kidding.

"Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion (the forcible entry of magma into or between other rock formations) of igneous material. What they cannot agree upon is how that process took place and whether or not the magma reached the land surface.

Numerous ideas have evolved since the official discovery of Devils Tower. Geologists Carpenter and Russell studied Devils Tower in the late 1800s and came to the conclusion that the Tower was indeed formed by an igneous intrusion. Later geologists searched for more detailed explanations.

In 1907, scientists Darton and O'Hara decided that Devils Tower must be an eroded remnant of a laccolith. A laccolith is a large, mushroom–shaped mass of igneous rock which intrudes between the layers of sedimentary rocks but does not reach the surface. This produces a rounded bulge in the sedimentary layers above the intrusion. This idea was quite popular in the early 1900s when numerous studies were done on a number of laccoliths in the Southwest.

Other ideas have suggested that Devils Tower is a volcanic plug or that it is the neck of an extinct volcano. Although there is no evidence of volcanic activity - volcanic ash, lava flows, or volcanic debris - anywhere in the surrounding countryside, it is possible that this material may simply have eroded away.

The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger."

https://www.nps.gov/deto/learn/nature/geologicformations.htm

The bold is what I believed what happened. 

https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/02G_Phonolite.htm

Phonolite takes a long time to cool down(could take up to millions of years). The slower sometime cools down, the larger the crystals would be. Since they cooled underground, the cooling time increases, as opposed to cooling down on the surface.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-slow-crystal-growth-give-larger-crystals

http://www.reciprocalnet.org/edumodules/crystallization/index.html

Crystal shapes can include cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, hexagonal, monoclinic, triclinic, and trigonal.

The rocks compactness also contributes to the "hexagon" shapes.

Evidence

Erfisflat said:

@evidence, very interesting parable here.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-does-kiowa-story-about-seven-sisters-their-335094

You watch any mud fossil university videos? I tried to contact him, for some reason, he still thinks the earth is a ball. How can you possibly think that mountain sized giants(or bigger) roamed the earth, and it was only 25,000 miles in circumference?!?

Hello buddy @Erfisflat
I couldn't get the rest of the parable, do I have to sign up for that homework eNote thing?

Yes, I subscribed to Mud fossil university, but I must have missed him being a Globetard!? This is what keeps me back from deciding on Giants, all the different versions, interpretations, especially mud fossil universities - "fresh blood" found inside rocks which he says are the organs of giants!? If the entire Giant fossilized to a rock, how did the blood remain fresh in a much smaller rock?
I feel the old man is trying too hard to convince, maybe it's making him say things he shouldn't, .. I don't know? I do like the rest of what he shown, .. mind boggling if you ask me?

I've been watching "Wise Up"  videos, and me being a machinist, I recognized a few of the ancient structures as giant milling, and maybe even CNC machines! Then there are the ships made of steel, where you can even see the rivets (like the Titanic of which even the name is of the Titans!?) Are we following in the footsteps of the world before us??   He makes a lot of good points, for one, that some of those giant structures were giant multilevel buildings that have since collapsed, and I can also agree with that. Also he points out the rebar's, joints, screws, beams, .. everything that we use today to build high-rises, machines .. and I can see where there were cemented roads too!?

So we have those that think those mountains were all giant trees, then those who think (like MFU) that they are all giant people/creatures, but I found that Wise Up makes the most sense, where he points out Giants from Giant trees, then there are the structures built like we do today out of steel and concrete, and then there are the advanced giant machines. 

I think what we have to do is all come together on this, and start a timeline from the very beginning where God created the Heaven and the Earth, Genesis 1:1, and determine who inhabited the earth in those; before us humans times, why it ended up in chaos where it was all covered in water?
Then separate that from after God cleaning it all up, creating the firmament separating the waters. Then He created the two other heavens, the air and where all the stars are, .. and of course the sun and the moon.

So a timeline starting before man Genesis 1:1,
.. then the creation of man; Genesis 1:2 -
then the fall and being kicked out of the Garden,
then the expulsion and wondering of Cain,
the mixing again with the angels and the daughters of man,
then Noah's Flood,
then again the angels coming down creating giant men,
and creating evil nations which God warned the Israelites to stay away from, or wipe out
then we have David going about wiping out other "axis of evil"
and now here we are, deceived to a point where Religion and their gods rule over the minds and hearts of men by the lies they made us believe, like the: "a spinning globe in a Godless universe, and man now believes he's an evolving monkey!?

I think this could be very exciting times, but we'll have to keep Satan and his nation of minions, who he put as rulers over us from confusing everything for us!?
You ready Brother?
In Jesus name, .. who can go against us, right? I mean they can and will, but they will not succeed because we will seek the power of the Holy Spirit; the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, .. so let the Rocks Speak as Jesus said!

Evidence

BaconToes said:

I have done some research on this "Devil's Tower", and I have concluded it has definitely nothing to do with mythical beings chopping off the top of trees. Not kidding.

"Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion (the forcible entry of magma into or between other rock formations) of igneous material. What they cannot agree upon is how that process took place and whether or not the magma reached the land surface.

Numerous ideas have evolved since the official discovery of Devils Tower. Geologists Carpenter and Russell studied Devils Tower in the late 1800s and came to the conclusion that the Tower was indeed formed by an igneous intrusion. Later geologists searched for more detailed explanations.

In 1907, scientists Darton and O'Hara decided that Devils Tower must be an eroded remnant of a laccolith. A laccolith is a large, mushroom–shaped mass of igneous rock which intrudes between the layers of sedimentary rocks but does not reach the surface. This produces a rounded bulge in the sedimentary layers above the intrusion. This idea was quite popular in the early 1900s when numerous studies were done on a number of laccoliths in the Southwest.

Other ideas have suggested that Devils Tower is a volcanic plug or that it is the neck of an extinct volcano. Although there is no evidence of volcanic activity - volcanic ash, lava flows, or volcanic debris - anywhere in the surrounding countryside, it is possible that this material may simply have eroded away.

The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger."

https://www.nps.gov/deto/learn/nature/geologicformations.htm

The bold is what I believed what happened. 

https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/02G_Phonolite.htm

Phonolite takes a long time to cool down(could take up to millions of years). The slower sometime cools down, the larger the crystals would be. Since they cooled underground, the cooling time increases, as opposed to cooling down on the surface.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-slow-crystal-growth-give-larger-crystals

http://www.reciprocalnet.org/edumodules/crystallization/index.html

Crystal shapes can include cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, hexagonal, monoclinic, triclinic, and trigonal.

The rocks compactness also contributes to the "hexagon" shapes.

Ah, .. that explains it buddy @BaconToes .. like the Grand Canyon: caused by a river going up and down the hills and the mountains over millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, until it created what we see with illuminati-eyes today, .. including all them Giant bones in its caves, you know, the ones the Smithsonian took away for safe keeping!

You've been spinning on your globe for way too long dear fellow animal of the ape family! I suggest you stay away from the equator till you get your bearings, 1,000 mph may be too much for you. Try the Antarctic, it's spinning a lot slower, and the gravity is much greater too.

Evidence

someone234 said:

I don't believe in the giants and I definitely don't fear them. I believe humanity conquered them  in the early stages and scared them away to another plane like Jupiter. It seems they are not high-IQ so their size didn't matter too much to us.

@someone234 Not high IQ? Evolutionists go by brain size, and even the baby giants had brains the size of small hills, so according to the BB-Evolution theory, they were all geniuses.

someone234

@Evidence their brains were used to move and sense things. If they were equally smart they'd have killed us off.

Evidence

someone234 said:

@Evidence their brains were used to move and sense things. If they were equally smart they'd have killed us off.

@someone234 that was their whole plan, only it wasn't what God planned, just as it is written in the Bible.
There is brain and brawn and then there is faith, which Evolution casts aside.

I was talking about Evolution and "brain size", .. how, now that we have uncovered these giants, evolution is once again proven false.

EmeryPearson

It's an example of Columnar jointing. You see this in many places throughout Earth. It's not exactly uncommon or unique. It occurs as lava flows cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnar_jointing

Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

@EmeryPearson

"You are trying to determine my position on a completely different point. Stop stalling and answer."

I'm trying to establish your position on the only point in question: how these structures are formed. You said specifically that I was wrong about what science claims, what exactly is the claim? If you're going to state that I don't have a clue what geologists claim these are, then link to a site where geologists claim the same thing as I, I'm not sure what to debate against. I'm not stalling, and I have answered most of your questions, as respectfully as possible.

"Also in relation to your defence, it is illogical. I have stated your claims about how it works do not match the scientific explanation. Therefore quoting the scientific explanation is not a relevant defence, because my entire point is you made a strawman which did not match that argument."

That isn't my defense. My defense is what is logical. Saying that (or silently agreeing with) volcanos somehow erupted underground and ended up with a flat surface, and cooled uniformly hundreds of feet vertically enough to form straight, hexagonal shoots would be the equivalent to saying a Volkswagen plant exploded and a Ferrari is formed from the ashes. It has never been demonstrated and is a theory supported only by graphs, diagrams and opinions. This is the definition of pseudoscience. 

"You also clearly lie here. You state "I'm simply asking for verifiable evidence, or a practical example".
This is clearly untrue. In your last post, in the very point we were talking about, rather than asking for evidence you presented a picture which you thought should be treated as proof even though it did not meet the obvious criteria that would make it a relevant example and you provided no explanation for why it might be relevant despite all common sense. Please do not lie to cover up the errors in your argument."

I don't think you know what verifiable evidence or practical examples means. If your position is that a volcanic erupted and turned into this structure, then it would be scientifically sound to either recreate the circumstances and compare the results, or make some observations from another example and form a hypothesis. Your solution is more "trust what the experts say" and "but, but, muh science book!" I've given another example of a mineral cracking when it cools and it is completely random, I explained this when I provided the picture. So your accusations of me lying is a poor attempt to refute my argument. 

"you would see other examples from across the world of columular jointing in rocks."

Your last attempt at a rebuttal does not prove your point by given an explanation of a cooling and cracking of any mineral, but you point out that there are other examples of this, my reply is that if devil's tower was a giant tree, why would it be the only one?






Upon researching the list from your source, any structures still tact enough to see good "jointing" can be unbiasedly also seen as a tree stump.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

It's an example of Columnar jointing. You see this in many places throughout Earth. It's not exactly uncommon or unique. It occurs as lava flows cool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columnar_jointing

You're restating an argument that I've already refuted. Wikipedia will repeat the same excuse that the crack smoking scientists/geologists give us. Here, I'll quote my first response to this(above)

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

This is incorrect, you have been unable to refute the geological explanation.
You've stated you do not believe it, due to a lack of a first-hand witness. This isn't a refutation, it's a belief.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

This is incorrect, you have been unable to refute the geological explanation.
You've stated you do not believe it, due to a lack of a first-hand witness. This isn't a refutation, it's a belief.

@EmeryPearson we have witnessed lava flow on all kinds of terrain, and into all kinds of mediums like water, and suddenly cool: (lava meets the ocean)

c

never once anyone recorded that the lava turned into basalt columns.

EmeryPearson

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

@EmeryPearson so what you're saying is that if we were to look at lava down below the earth, it would look like the basalt coulombs?
But I've shown you lava going right into the ocean, and we have pic's of lava under water, does this look like basalt coulombs to you?




Show us one picture of a Vulcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?

EmeryPearson

@Evidence

"@EmeryPearson so what you're saying is that if we were to look at lava down below the earth, it would look like the basalt coulombs?

So the existence of differing lava formations, disproves a specific lava formation?

Show us one picture of a Vulcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?

This still wouldn't meet your required burden of proof. I would still be taking a picture after the said formation had formed. Rather than witnessing it form.

All geological formations which do not form visibility on the surface of the Earth cannot exist by this logic. Only external lava formations could be real, as they are the only ones your able to witness.

BaconToes

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

This is incorrect, you have been unable to refute the geological explanation.
You've stated you do not believe it, due to a lack of a first-hand witness. This isn't a refutation, it's a belief.

@EmeryPearson we have witnessed lava flow on all kinds of terrain, and into all kinds of mediums like water, and suddenly cool: (lava meets the ocean)

c

never once anyone recorded that the lava turned into basalt columns.

Please read again Evidence

"Geologists agree that Devils Tower was formed by the intrusion (the forcible entry of magma into or between other rock formations) of igneous material.

The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground(like Emery said) and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger."

https://www.nps.gov/deto/learn/nature/geologicformations.htm

https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/02G_Phonolite.htm

Phonolite takes a long time to cool down(could take up to millions of years). The slower sometime cools down, the larger the crystals would be. Since they cooled underground, the cooling time increases, as opposed to cooling down on the surface.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-slow-crystal-growth-give-larger-crystals

http://www.reciprocalnet.org/edumodules/crystallization/index.html

Crystal shapes can include cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, hexagonal, monoclinic, triclinic, and trigonal.

The rocks compactness also contributes to the "hexagon" shapes.

BaconToes

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

@EmeryPearson so what you're saying is that if we were to look at lava down below the earth, it would look like the basalt coulombs?
But I've shown you lava going right into the ocean, and we have pic's of lava under water, does this look like basalt coulombs to you?




Show us one picture of a Vulcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?

Underwater, lava cool faster because of the low temperature, and basaltic lava only needs several months to cool down.
Phonolite takes longer, "the igneous rock that forms the Tower is called phonolite porphyry. The word phonolite (fō'nə-līt') refers to the mineral composition of the rock. The word porphyry refers to its texture or crystal size and arrangement."[1] 
"As the phonolite porphyry of the Tower hardened and cooled, the rock began to contract. As it did so, long, vertical fractures (cracks) called columnar joints began to form in the new rock of the Tower."[1]

So that's what happened.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/ET_Igneous.htm

BaconToes

Evidence said:

someone234 said:

I don't believe in the giants and I definitely don't fear them. I believe humanity conquered them  in the early stages and scared them away to another plane like Jupiter. It seems they are not high-IQ so their size didn't matter too much to us.

@someone234 Not high IQ? Evolutionists go by brain size, and even the baby giants had brains the size of small hills, so according to the BB-Evolution theory, they were all geniuses.

Generalising
"Brain size only matters if the rest of the brain is organized properly to facilitate information processing."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter/

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

Therefore it is unfalsifiable. Never, ever has lava formed this way where it can be observed. Does this mean it is impossible? Not necessarily, but this makes the claim pseudoscience. Plants and animals however, have been observed to both grow like this, and fossilize. Occam's razor supports the tree stump theory over any pseudoscienctific claim, such as yours. Again, pointing at other fossilized trees and or other living creatures is not supporting evidence.

Erfisflat

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

@EmeryPearson so what you're saying is that if we were to look at lava down below the earth, it would look like the basalt coulombs?
But I've shown you lava going right into the ocean, and we have pic's of lava under water, does this look like basalt coulombs to you?




Show us one picture of a Vulcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?

Underwater, lava cool faster because of the low temperature, and basaltic lava only needs several months to cool down.
Phonolite takes longer, "the igneous rock that forms the Tower is called phonolite porphyry. The word phonolite (fō'nə-līt') refers to the mineral composition of the rock. The word porphyry refers to its texture or crystal size and arrangement."[1] 
"As the phonolite porphyry of the Tower hardened and cooled, the rock began to contract. As it did so, long, vertical fractures (cracks) called columnar joints began to form in the new rock of the Tower."[1]

So that's what happened.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/ET_Igneous.htm

This cracking would result in more random patterns, this is not what happened. You can see there is very little chaos to this structure.
The columns are in nearly perfect and symmetrical patterns, never witnessed in any other cracking mineral.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"Therefore it is unfalsifiable." 

This logic does not follow, a lack of a witness does not make an event unfalsifiable. 

"Not necessarily, but this makes the claim pseudoscience."

I assure you, Geoscience is science.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-is-geoscience

"Plants and animals however, have been observed to both grow like this, and fossilize."

As you lack a witness to the actual event though, by your logic, this statement is pseudoscience.

"Occam's razor supports the tree stump theory over any pseudoscienctific claim"

I believe your definition of Occam's razor differs from what is widely accepted. As Geology is not without evidence, you are not able to apply it here.

"Again, pointing at other fossilized trees and or other living creatures is not supporting evidence."

As this is concerning geological formations, rather than fossils, I don't need to refer to them for evidence. I think you're confusing Paleontology with Geology. While related, they are not equatable. With such complicated matters, such a mistake is understandable.

Erfisflat

"This logic does not follow, a lack of a witness does not make an event unfalsifiable."

But an event that can never be tested or reproduced makes that event unfalsifiable. Similar to the big bang theory, or the ball earth theory. Wait, ball earth was tested, it was found false, but I digress...

Geoscience is science.

Some of it may be, but this claim is not. It cannot be tested, has no supporting evidence outside of an appeal to authority. A hypothesis that was widely accepted so as to not accept the reality.

As you lack a witness to the actual event though, by your logic, this statement is pseudoscience.

To the actual event, yes, but to the supporting evidence? Hardly. Ive seen these structures under microscopic lense. I've made a fossil cast. As for making lava crack in nearly perfect symetrically identical patterns? Your turn.

I believe your definition of Occam's razor differs from what is widely accepted. As Geology is not without evidence, you are not able to apply it here.

Nope, my definition is the same as widely accepted. The theory with the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one. You must assume this whole even as it is. Once again, plants have been observed with this identical pattern, and they are known to fossilize. Occam's razor supports my theory over yours. The broad assumption and literal straw man you make is that my position is that geology is without evidence. This is not my position. The given explanation for this event is STILL without evidence.

As this is concerning geological formations, rather than fossils, I don't need to refer to them for evidence. I think you're confusing Paleontology with Geology. While related, they are not equatable. With such complicated matters, such a mistake is understandable.

This is your assertion for which there is no evidence. You are asmittedly refusing to unbiasedly examine evidence and give circular reasoning as to why.

Evidence

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it.

@EmeryPearson so what you're saying is that if we were to look at lava down below the earth, it would look like the basalt coulombs?
But I've shown you lava going right into the ocean, and we have pic's of lava under water, does this look like basalt coulombs to you?




Show us one picture of a Vulcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?

Underwater, lava cool faster because of the low temperature, and basaltic lava only needs several months to cool down.
Phonolite takes longer, "the igneous rock that forms the Tower is called phonolite porphyry. The word phonolite (fō'nə-līt') refers to the mineral composition of the rock. The word porphyry refers to its texture or crystal size and arrangement."[1] 
"As the phonolite porphyry of the Tower hardened and cooled, the rock began to contract. As it did so, long, vertical fractures (cracks) called columnar joints began to form in the new rock of the Tower."[1]

So that's what happened.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/ET_Igneous.htm

@BaconToes again I ask you:
"Show us one picture of a volcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?"
Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?

Evidence

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

someone234 said:

I don't believe in the giants and I definitely don't fear them. I believe humanity conquered them  in the early stages and scared them away to another plane like Jupiter. It seems they are not high-IQ so their size didn't matter too much to us.

@someone234 Not high IQ? Evolutionists go by brain size, and even the baby giants had brains the size of small hills, so according to the BB-Evolution theory, they were all geniuses.

Generalising
"Brain size only matters if the rest of the brain is organized properly to facilitate information processing."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter/

@BaconToes - Ahh, .. there is some "fine print" for you, so now it's not "brain size", but the brain has to be organized properly to facilitate information processing.
Just like volcanoes, they have to have that perfect NASA/CERN/BB/Evolution preconceived conditions to form into basalt columns, right? And only the mentioned OWR (One World Religious) organization has the right to comment on what happened to trees, animals, volcanoes millions and billions of years ago, correct?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"But an event that can never be tested or reproduced makes that event unfalsifiable."

An event occured. As Devil's Tower exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Tower

Columnar Jointing is the most consistent explanation based on observed physics.
http://homepage.usask.ca/~mjr347/prog/geoe118/geoe118.054.html

"To the actual event, yes, but to the supporting evidence? Hardly. Ive seen these structures under microscopic lense. I've made a fossil cast. As for making lava crack in nearly perfect symetrically identical patterns? Your turn."

This doesn't prove anything according to your logic, as you were not there to witness fossil formation. Fossils could have been created in their current form to test your faith in God for all you know.  By your own admission, your claims are pseudoscience, as you lack a direct witness to fossilisation. As you best stated: "Again, pointing at other fossilized trees and or other living creatures is not supporting evidence." 

"Once again, plants have been observed with this identical pattern, and they are known to fossilize"

As you stated earlier: "Again, pointing at other fossilized trees and or other living creatures is not supporting evidence." As you did not witness this to occur, by your logic, it' unfalsifiable. 

EmeryPearson: "You've only witnessed external lava flows.

By your logic, lava does not flow underground. As it cannot be witnessed. This precludes any lava formation not readily visible on the surface from existing. As you're not able to witness it."

Erfisflat: "Therefore it is unfalsifiable. Never, ever has lava formed this way where it can be observed. "

Simply replace 'lava' with 'fossil'. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

Occam's razor supports my theory over yours. 

This is incorrect, as yours requires far more assumptions. This is a fundamental lack of understanding concerning Occam's Razor.
Simple English: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

"The given explanation for this event is STILL without evidence."

This is also false. Simply because you equate witnesses = evidence, doesn't infer it's without evidence. This is your belief, opinion.

"This is your assertion for which there is no evidence. You are asmittedly refusing to unbiasedly examine evidence and give circular reasoning as to why."

This is also false for the same reason. A witness is not the only form which evidence takes.
https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/False Equivalency.html


Overall, you've given spirited arguments on your opinions. But no evidence.

EmeryPearson

@Evidence

"Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

It's almost like your purposefully rejecting logic. But you wouldn't do that.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

"Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

It's almost like your purposefully rejecting logic. But you wouldn't do that.

@EmeryPearson
I'm asking for just one, we have 1,500 volcanoes, surely you can show ONE surrounded by basalt coulombs?  I mean where else would you find these supposed volcanic created coulombs if not near volcanoes??

EmeryPearson

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

"Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

It's almost like your purposefully rejecting logic. But you wouldn't do that.

@EmeryPearson
I'm asking for just one, we have 1,500 volcanoes, surely you can show ONE surrounded by basalt coulombs?  I mean where else would you find these supposed volcanic created coulombs if not near volcanoes??

@Evidence

Every example is at a inactive volcanic site, or an active one. Is there a specific age you would like to move your goalposts to?

And what are coulombs? Perhaps your referring to Columns? 

BaconToes

Evidence said:

@BaconToes again I ask you:
"Show us one picture of a volcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?"
Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?

Again I ask you, have you read what I said?

BaconToes said:

Underwater, lava cool faster because of the low temperature, and basaltic lava only needs several months to cool down.
Phonolite takes longer, "the igneous rock that forms the Tower is called phonolite porphyry. The word phonolite (fō'nə-līt') refers to the mineral composition of the rock. The word porphyry refers to its texture or crystal size and arrangement."[1] 
"As the phonolite porphyry of the Tower hardened and cooled, the rock began to contract. As it did so, long, vertical fractures (cracks) called columnar joints began to form in the new rock of the Tower."[1]

So that's what happened.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/ET_Igneous.htm

And the theory I posted above describes that the Phonolite cooled underground and arose by weak sedimentary rocks being weathered and eroded.
Underground(higher temperature)= Slower cooling + Larger crystal growth 
At Earth's Surface(lower temperature)= Faster cooling + Smaller crystal growth -> that's why most lava cools faster than magma(volcanoes)
Basaltic lava also cools faster.

Evidence

EmeryPearson said:

Evidence said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Evidence

"Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

It's almost like your purposefully rejecting logic. But you wouldn't do that.

@EmeryPearson
I'm asking for just one, we have 1,500 volcanoes, surely you can show ONE surrounded by basalt coulombs?  I mean where else would you find these supposed volcanic created coulombs if not near volcanoes??

@Evidence

Every example is at a inactive volcanic site, or an active one. Is there a specific age you would like to move your goalposts to?

And what are coulombs? Perhaps your referring to Columns? 

@EmeryPearson Every example is at a inactive volcanic site, or an active one. Is there a specific age you would like to move your goalposts to?

When you're talking millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, then yes, as you said: "Every example is at a inactive volcanic site, or an active one." It's Evolutionists who move the goalpost to wherever you want. I mean here is what you think earth is, a volcano ready to erupt

c


And what are coulombs? Perhaps your referring to Columns? 

What are coulombs you ask? - the SI unit of electric charge, equal to the quantity of electricity conveyed in one second by a current of one ampere.

Evidence

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

@BaconToes again I ask you:
"Show us one picture of a volcanic mountain where the cooled sides are made up of basalt coulombs?"
Those volcanic mountains have been there for millions and billions of years just as Devils Tower has. Surely you can find at least one basalt column volcanic mountain around the 'Ring of Fire'!?

Again I ask you, have you read what I said?

BaconToes said:

Underwater, lava cool faster because of the low temperature, and basaltic lava only needs several months to cool down.
Phonolite takes longer, "the igneous rock that forms the Tower is called phonolite porphyry. The word phonolite (fō'nə-līt') refers to the mineral composition of the rock. The word porphyry refers to its texture or crystal size and arrangement."[1] 
"As the phonolite porphyry of the Tower hardened and cooled, the rock began to contract. As it did so, long, vertical fractures (cracks) called columnar joints began to form in the new rock of the Tower."[1]

So that's what happened.

Sources:
[1] https://www.nature.nps.gov/views/Sites/DETO/HTML/ET_Igneous.htm

And the theory I posted above describes that the Phonolite cooled underground and arose by weak sedimentary rocks being weathered and eroded.
Underground(higher temperature)= Slower cooling + Larger crystal growth 
At Earth's Surface(lower temperature)= Faster cooling + Smaller crystal growth -> that's why most lava cools faster than magma(volcanoes)
Basaltic lava also cools faster.

@BaconToes Yes, that's the evolutionist explanation. And since were talking about millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, you can move the goalpost to any time, especially like I shown how your Globe is a giant ball of fire ready to pop.
We know all about Evolutionist explanations, based on what happened millions and billions of years ago caused by gravity, space and time that exploded. All we FE'rs can do is examine what we see, and match it to what exists, it's called science, and not based on never observed sci-fi fairytales. 

brontoraptor

What is Devil's Tower? It's obviously the petrified remains from the trunk of the great tree that the first people pods fell from.

BaconToes

Evidence said:

@BaconToes Yes, that's the evolutionist explanation. And since were talking about millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, you can move the goalpost to any time, especially like I shown how your Globe is a giant ball of fire ready to pop.
We know all about Evolutionist explanations, based on what happened millions and billions of years ago caused by gravity, space and time that exploded. All we FE'rs can do is examine what we see, and match it to what exists, it's called science, and not based on never observed sci-fi fairytales. 

An experiment you can do yourself to compare crystal size if you are asking for the scientific method.

3 Mothballs (napthalene)3 Crayons3 Test tubes (50 mL or larger) or 3 small beakers (50 mL or larger)1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of boiling water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of warm water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of ice water1 Hot platePair of pliers

To do this experiment, you will need:

Fill one beaker with 100 mL of water and place it on the hot plate; bring to a boil.

Crush one of the mothballs with the pliers and place it into a test tube; crush a crayon and add it to the test tube. Shake the test tube to mix the mothball and the crayon. Repeat, placing the other mothballs and crayons into separate test tubes. Place all three test tubes into the beaker of boiling water until the mixture melts completely.

Warning! Mothballs and crayons both give off flammable gasses when heated. Do not place the molten mixture near an open flame or spark!

1. Using tongs, place one test tube into the warm water and one into the cold water..

2. After about ten to fifteen minutes (depending on the temperature of the warm water), remove the test tubes from the beakers. Compare the size of the crystals. You may need to use a magnifying glass in order to see the crystals clearly; rotating the tube (to catch specular reflection) may also help.

https://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html

Big Bang theory is based on many experiment done by many scientists.

"The Big Bang has had many experiments done on countless observations. As an example, Einstein's general relativity work formed the basis for equations done by Alexander Friedmann, which led Georges Lemaître to propose that the distance a galaxy was away from us should be proportional to its redshift. When Edwin Hubble observed just that, it led Lemaître to conclude that the farther away a galaxy or cluster was, the higher its apparent velocity. If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you want to use the scientific method to see if the Big Bang theory is "real". Your observation, that "many believe in [it]", is flawed. It's not "belief". Science is not about having faith that something is true. It's not about being "pretty sure". It's about taking small steps in a very careful way and asking questions that can only be answered by actual observation and confirming evidence."

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60193-is-science-always-defined-by-the-scientific-method/

BaconToes

brontoraptor said:

What is Devil's Tower? It's obviously the petrified remains from the trunk of the great tree that the first people pods fell from.

Any evidence?

Erfisflat

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

@BaconToes Yes, that's the evolutionist explanation. And since were talking about millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, you can move the goalpost to any time, especially like I shown how your Globe is a giant ball of fire ready to pop.
We know all about Evolutionist explanations, based on what happened millions and billions of years ago caused by gravity, space and time that exploded. All we FE'rs can do is examine what we see, and match it to what exists, it's called science, and not based on never observed sci-fi fairytales. 

An experiment you can do yourself to compare crystal size if you are asking for the scientific method.

3 Mothballs (napthalene)3 Crayons3 Test tubes (50 mL or larger) or 3 small beakers (50 mL or larger)1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of boiling water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of warm water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of ice water1 Hot platePair of pliers

To do this experiment, you will need:

Fill one beaker with 100 mL of water and place it on the hot plate; bring to a boil.

Crush one of the mothballs with the pliers and place it into a test tube; crush a crayon and add it to the test tube. Shake the test tube to mix the mothball and the crayon. Repeat, placing the other mothballs and crayons into separate test tubes. Place all three test tubes into the beaker of boiling water until the mixture melts completely.

Warning! Mothballs and crayons both give off flammable gasses when heated. Do not place the molten mixture near an open flame or spark!

1. Using tongs, place one test tube into the warm water and one into the cold water..

2. After about ten to fifteen minutes (depending on the temperature of the warm water), remove the test tubes from the beakers. Compare the size of the crystals. You may need to use a magnifying glass in order to see the crystals clearly; rotating the tube (to catch specular reflection) may also help.

https://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html

Big Bang theory is based on many experiment done by many scientists.

"The Big Bang has had many experiments done on countless observations. As an example, Einstein's general relativity work formed the basis for equations done by Alexander Friedmann, which led Georges Lemaître to propose that the distance a galaxy was away from us should be proportional to its redshift. When Edwin Hubble observed just that, it led Lemaître to conclude that the farther away a galaxy or cluster was, the higher its apparent velocity. If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you want to use the scientific method to see if the Big Bang theory is "real". Your observation, that "many believe in [it]", is flawed. It's not "belief". Science is not about having faith that something is true. It's not about being "pretty sure". It's about taking small steps in a very careful way and asking questions that can only be answered by actual observation and confirming evidence."

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60193-is-science-always-defined-by-the-scientific-method/

A few things, first I admire the effort, really I do. Not many people will actually do anything more than a quick Google search to find whatever plausible explanation, while you go a few steps further and actually search for some supporting evidence, what's more is you find an easy experiment, which trumps even my evidence, were it not for a few details.

 The experiment is a grow crystals experiment. These are also done with salt and sugar. They even sell the $1 toys that grow crystals. Yours however differs in at least one major way than both the salt, sugar, and more importantly, magma. Chemical composition. You are creating crystals with water and pesticides. The only common axiom with the theory is the "cooling". Your theory claims that the magma, which was still in the earth, cooled for a very very long time, which nobody will ever witness by the way. This makes the two basic tenant descriptions of Devil's tower assumptions. First, we must assume that these crystals can obtain this size. The largest crystals in the world are under forty feet and were found 1,000 feet underground, and were said to be heated by a volcano, while the flat top Devil's tower is over 5,000 feet straight up.

http://www.extremescience.com/giant-cave-crystals.htm

Second, we must assume that the axiom "millions of years" was responsible for their extreme uniformity. The Naica mine had some impressive crystals yet they we no more uniform than the crystals from your experiment, which I did not perform due to reasons like no mothballs on hand and not willing to season my house with pesticides. Don't worry, I cheated and saw a few demonstrations on YouTube. 





Just for a quick visual comparison:







At some point, you have to make a decision, based on Occam's razor.
You have to make the above assumptions, for no reason, and they can never be tested. I know that plants can and have had this exact composition on a smaller scale. I also know that plants can fossilize, the only thing I have to assume, which is not entirely out of the way to ask for, is that humans err, or lie.

The article also features a piece of magma crystal too! I just laughed.

BaconToes

@Erfisflat

 The experiment is a grow crystals experiment. These are also done with salt and sugar. They even sell the $1 toys that grow crystals. Yours however differs in at least one major way than both the salt, sugar, and more importantly, magma. Chemical composition. You are creating crystals with water and pesticides. The only common axiom with the theory is the "cooling". 

The experiment shows how cooling time correlates with crystal size. 
Most crystals behave this way. (exceptions are those crystals that cooled both fast and slow, such as the Colbert Rhyolite in the Arbuckle Mountains of Oklahoma)

Your theory claims that the magma, which was still in the earth, cooled for a very very long time, which nobody will ever witness by the way. This makes the two basic tenant descriptions of Devil's tower assumptions. First, we must assume that these crystals can obtain this size. The largest crystals in the world are under forty feet and were found 1,000 feet underground, and were said to be heated by a volcano, while the flat top Devil's tower is over 5,000 feet straight up.

http://www.extremescience.com/giant-cave-crystals.htm


Then let me ask you, where do intrusive rocks such as granite, gabbro, and diorite come from? According to you, these rocks should not exist because we never saw them form.


Second, we must assume that the axiom "millions of years" was responsible for their extreme uniformity. The Naica mine had some impressive crystals yet they we no more uniform than the crystals from your experiment, which I did not perform due to reasons like no mothballs on hand and not willing to season my house with pesticides. Don't worry, I cheated and saw a few demonstrations on YouTube. 


Crystals in the Naica mine(the one you showed below) are selenite mineral(forms of the gypsum mineral). The gypsum mineral is an evaporite crystal, meaning "any of a variety of individual minerals found in the sedimentary deposit of soluble salts that results from the evaporation of water."

They are most likely to be found in sedimentary rocks and are unlikely to be in igneous rocks.

https://www.britannica.com/science/evaporite


Just for a quick visual comparison:







At some point, you have to make a decision, based on Occam's razor.
You have to make the above assumptions, for no reason, and they can never be tested. I know that plants can and have had this exact composition on a smaller scale. I also know that plants can fossilize, the only thing I have to assume, which is not entirely out of the way to ask for, is that humans err, or lie.

Please read what I wrote to Evidence because I don't want to explain it again.

The article also features a piece of magma crystal too! I just laughed.

that's granite(i think) 



yep it's pretty big

forgot to mention that larger mass of magma takes longer to cool.
If you take a large pot and boil it, it would take longer to cool because there is more surface area.

Erfisflat

BaconToes said:

@Erfisflat

 The experiment is a grow crystals experiment. These are also done with salt and sugar. They even sell the $1 toys that grow crystals. Yours however differs in at least one major way than both the salt, sugar, and more importantly, magma. Chemical composition. You are creating crystals with water and pesticides. The only common axiom with the theory is the "cooling". 

The experiment shows how cooling time correlates with crystal size. 
Most crystals behave this way. (exceptions are those crystals that cooled both fast and slow, such as the Colbert Rhyolite in the Arbuckle Mountains of Oklahoma)

Your theory claims that the magma, which was still in the earth, cooled for a very very long time, which nobody will ever witness by the way. This makes the two basic tenant descriptions of Devil's tower assumptions. First, we must assume that these crystals can obtain this size. The largest crystals in the world are under forty feet and were found 1,000 feet underground, and were said to be heated by a volcano, while the flat top Devil's tower is over 5,000 feet straight up.

http://www.extremescience.com/giant-cave-crystals.htm


Then let me ask you, where do intrusive rocks such as granite, gabbro, and diorite come from? According to you, these rocks should not exist because we never saw them form.


Second, we must assume that the axiom "millions of years" was responsible for their extreme uniformity. The Naica mine had some impressive crystals yet they we no more uniform than the crystals from your experiment, which I did not perform due to reasons like no mothballs on hand and not willing to season my house with pesticides. Don't worry, I cheated and saw a few demonstrations on YouTube. 


Crystals in the Naica mine(the one you showed below) are selenite mineral(forms of the gypsum mineral). The gypsum mineral is an evaporite crystal, meaning "any of a variety of individual minerals found in the sedimentary deposit of soluble salts that results from the evaporation of water."

They are most likely to be found in sedimentary rocks and are unlikely to be in igneous rocks.

https://www.britannica.com/science/evaporite


Just for a quick visual comparison:







At some point, you have to make a decision, based on Occam's razor.
You have to make the above assumptions, for no reason, and they can never be tested. I know that plants can and have had this exact composition on a smaller scale. I also know that plants can fossilize, the only thing I have to assume, which is not entirely out of the way to ask for, is that humans err, or lie.

Please read what I wrote to Evidence because I don't want to explain it again.

The article also features a piece of magma crystal too! I just laughed.

that's granite(i think) 



yep it's pretty big

forgot to mention that larger mass of magma takes longer to cool.
If you take a large pot and boil it, it would take longer to cool because there is more surface area.

Size is one thing, though like I said, larger crystals are formed deep underground, and are allegedly heated by magma. This is above ground, and was supposed to consist of magma. Uniformity is another. All of these pillars are fairly symetrically identical in size and shape. This you've ignored.

BaconToes

@Erfisflat

Size is one thing, though like I said, larger crystals are formed deep underground, and are allegedly heated by magma. This is above ground, and was supposed to consist of magma.

The Devil's Tower was not formed aboveground, as I mentioned earlier, but most likely because of an intrusion through sedimentary rock. I have read online that you can find the sedimentary rock nearby, but I can't be sure until I visit it(probably won't)

"The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger." -earlier response to Evidence

Uniformity is another. All of these pillars are fairly symetrically identical in size and shape. This you've ignored.

I, in fact, have not ignored this, as I mentioned in my response to Evidence. Crystals are mostly symmetrical, and the size of the Devil's Tower is because it is an intrusive igneous rock, being formed underground, where it is warmer.


I hope you could reread what I wrote in response to @Evidence and refute my arguments before saying I ignored something.

Erfisflat

BaconToes said:

@Erfisflat

Size is one thing, though like I said, larger crystals are formed deep underground, and are allegedly heated by magma. This is above ground, and was supposed to consist of magma.

The Devil's Tower was not formed aboveground, as I mentioned earlier, but most likely because of an intrusion through sedimentary rock. I have read online that you can find the sedimentary rock nearby, but I can't be sure until I visit it(probably won't)

"The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger." -earlier response to Evidence

Uniformity is another. All of these pillars are fairly symetrically identical in size and shape. This you've ignored.

I, in fact, have not ignored this, as I mentioned in my response to Evidence. Crystals are mostly symmetrical, and the size of the Devil's Tower is because it is an intrusive igneous rock, being formed underground, where it is warmer.


I hope you could reread what I wrote in response to @Evidence and refute my arguments before saying I ignored something.

I'm not referring to the shape. Most, if not all crystals are of random sizes, and point in random directions. If I've missed a response to this, please let me know where I can find it.

Erfisflat

BaconToes said:

@Erfisflat

Size is one thing, though like I said, larger crystals are formed deep underground, and are allegedly heated by magma. This is above ground, and was supposed to consist of magma.

The Devil's Tower was not formed aboveground, as I mentioned earlier, but most likely because of an intrusion through sedimentary rock. I have read online that you can find the sedimentary rock nearby, but I can't be sure until I visit it(probably won't)

"The simplest explanation is that Devils Tower is a stock—a small intrusive body formed by magma which cooled underground and was later exposed by erosion.

The magma which formed Devils Tower cooled and crystallized into a rock type known as phonolite porphyry. It is a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. Hot molten magma is less dense and occupies more volume than cool hardened rock. As the rock cooled, it contracted, forming hexagonal (and sometime 4-, 5- and 7-sided) columns separated by vertical cracks. These columns are similar to those found at Devil's Postpile National Monument in California but those at Devils Tower are much larger." -earlier response to Evidence

Uniformity is another. All of these pillars are fairly symetrically identical in size and shape. This you've ignored.

I, in fact, have not ignored this, as I mentioned in my response to Evidence. Crystals are mostly symmetrical, and the size of the Devil's Tower is because it is an intrusive igneous rock, being formed underground, where it is warmer.


I hope you could reread what I wrote in response to @Evidence and refute my arguments before saying I ignored something.

By the way, isn't "The Devil's Tower was not formed aboveground" yet another unevidenced assumption?

Erfisflat

@BaconToes

I was just about to concede the whole cooling longer (due to being further underground) causes larger crystals, not because it is even remotely plausible (no offense), but because it is like beating a dead horse, but I'll make one more point using the illustration in the OP.


How did the pillars cool so evenly? The top of the pillars we're, according to this model anyway, much closer to the surface than the bottom by over 5,000 feet. 

Evidence

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

@BaconToes Yes, that's the evolutionist explanation. And since were talking about millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, you can move the goalpost to any time, especially like I shown how your Globe is a giant ball of fire ready to pop.
We know all about Evolutionist explanations, based on what happened millions and billions of years ago caused by gravity, space and time that exploded. All we FE'rs can do is examine what we see, and match it to what exists, it's called science, and not based on never observed sci-fi fairytales. 

An experiment you can do yourself to compare crystal size if you are asking for the scientific method.

3 Mothballs (napthalene)3 Crayons3 Test tubes (50 mL or larger) or 3 small beakers (50 mL or larger)1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of boiling water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of warm water1 Large beaker (250 mL or larger) with 100 ml of ice water1 Hot platePair of pliers

To do this experiment, you will need:

Fill one beaker with 100 mL of water and place it on the hot plate; bring to a boil.

Crush one of the mothballs with the pliers and place it into a test tube; crush a crayon and add it to the test tube. Shake the test tube to mix the mothball and the crayon. Repeat, placing the other mothballs and crayons into separate test tubes. Place all three test tubes into the beaker of boiling water until the mixture melts completely.

Warning! Mothballs and crayons both give off flammable gasses when heated. Do not place the molten mixture near an open flame or spark!

1. Using tongs, place one test tube into the warm water and one into the cold water..

2. After about ten to fifteen minutes (depending on the temperature of the warm water), remove the test tubes from the beakers. Compare the size of the crystals. You may need to use a magnifying glass in order to see the crystals clearly; rotating the tube (to catch specular reflection) may also help.

https://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/demos/XTAL/xtal.html

@BaconToes thanks buddy, but I'll go with @Erfisflat it would be nice if we seen some smaller, or angled giant pieces of Devils Tower Chrystal's around, you know, like crystals grow, this is way too uniform and huge. Besides, we FE know to what extent Globe Earthers go to un-explain unique finds (hiding them, denying they were found, destroying evidence etc.) that lead to the past, especially that ties to the Bible and Gods History of Creation.
I understand, you have to protect your religious beliefs at any cost, and having studied Evolution and the Big-Bang theory, .. which leads us to CERN and NASA, and the deception, the lies have no end, or limit that has reached, and even passed in the trillions of dollars!
I mean you do realize the huge connection of NASA and CERN to the cults, to ancient gods, the worship of the stars and so on don't you? Have you ever questioned the LHC purpose, that it may be just a giant Alter to Lucifer?, .. and they don't particularly hide their rituals and ritualistic dances to Lucifer either.

Evidence

BaconToes said:

Evidence said:

@BaconToes Yes, that's the evolutionist explanation. And since were talking about millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, you can move the goalpost to any time, especially like I shown how your Globe is a giant ball of fire ready to pop.
We know all about Evolutionist explanations, based on what happened millions and billions of years ago caused by gravity, space and time that exploded. All we FE'rs can do is examine what we see, and match it to what exists, it's called science, and not based on never observed sci-fi fairytales. 

Big Bang theory is based on many experiment done by many scientists.

"The Big Bang has had many experiments done on countless observations. As an example, Einstein's general relativity work formed the basis for equations done by Alexander Friedmann, which led Georges Lemaître to propose that the distance a galaxy was away from us should be proportional to its redshift. When Edwin Hubble observed just that, it led Lemaître to conclude that the farther away a galaxy or cluster was, the higher its apparent velocity. If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but it sounds like you want to use the scientific method to see if the Big Bang theory is "real". Your observation, that "many believe in [it]", is flawed. It's not "belief". Science is not about having faith that something is true. It's not about being "pretty sure". It's about taking small steps in a very careful way and asking questions that can only be answered by actual observation and confirming evidence."

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60193-is-science-always-defined-by-the-scientific-method/

Honestly @BaconToes .. I find it hard to believe that you can't see beyond the doctrines of the Big-Bangers? But I understand, I grew up in the Christian Religion and defended it most of my life, including all their gods starting with the three Musketeers, where one is for all, and all the gods for one, so I understand the Big-Bang and Evolution Religion that desperately want to make Lucifer as the creator of the universe, I really do. All Religions must defend their gods!

But you should know that Religion requires blind faith, where people like Einstein and Stephen Hawking are Prophets, what they claimed is undebatable gospel, and is used but never questioned. If you question their doctrines, you are told you don't understand, and NEVER that these prophets may have been wrong!?
Like the Baptists in the Christian Religion for instance, .. so many claim to have seen God, been in Heaven and joked with God, hugged him, talked with Him, and here is the information that God gave me to tell you all, … ! One time as I listened to this NDE information I thought he was joking and broke out in laughter, waiting for others to laugh too!? What I got instead was silence, and as I looked around me, I noticed that some people had tears in their eyes listening to those stories. They actually believed every word of it, not even verifying if it stood up to Biblical scrutiny or not?
It's one thing to believe after testing every claim, and another to be so desperate to have something, .. anything to believe in that even a speck popping out of nothing and exploding is good enough! And buddy I see this in the doctrines of both the Big Bang and the Evolution Religions.

Like Georges Lemaitre's proposition that: "If things are farther away today they must have been closer in the past."
Now I know you take this as BB-Gospel, and whatever claims (like all the Baptists that went to Heaven and talked with God) that come after it must be true too. I explained the redshift of light coming off of your so called galaxies, that according to Einstein's general relativity, light coming off an object, 'especially' in a vacuum, travels at a constant, whether or not the object is going away, or coming towards you, .. do you understand this?

It's like this: a one second beam shot from a laser from 10 light years away, that 186,282 mile long beam of light would travel as a 186,282 mile long beam of light for ten years until it hit your eyes standing on your globe earth.

A more imaginable example would be; if a space ship coming towards earth shot a yardstick at earth, that yardstick would not shrink or stretch, but would travel the same leinght and size until it hit earth. The yardstick would not be shorter or longer, but exactly a yard long when it hit earth.
Now if a ship was traveling away from earth, and from the back of the ship they shot a yardstick towards earth, that yardstick would hit earth exactly the length as it was shot out. The yardstick would still be one yard long when it hit earth whether ship was coming towards, or going away from earth, .. I'm sure you can understand that.

So HOW can anyone past 2nd grade schooling use the Doppler effect on either light, or the yardstick, when the Doppler effect is sound traveling through air!? I mean come on, planes can outrun sound twice, even three times traveling through air, but the prophet Einstein said nothing can outrun light. And these contradictions, paradoxes are before we even get into the "Relativistic effects" on things with mass, which, .. yes, they claim light has, only ignore the effects, .. lol.

There are so many paradoxes, and plainly ignorant claims in Relativity, and especially the curvature of Globe earth that if Engineers and normal earth scientists (not the Religious Cosmologists) would be forced to use it, they would either quit, or just sit down and stop working.

And yes, I know what science means, only we were talking about Big-bang and evolution stories of lava over millions and billions of years creating the world eco-system as we know it, which is exposed to an expanding vacuum, which is obvious that it's coming from religious fantasy. Just because they have trillions of dollars to spend on temples and Vatican Observatories (while half the world is starving) doesn't mean their claims have ANYTHING to do with reality, much less truth.