Evolution question of the day (preach, bible, quote, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well the problem is, the large blocks appear to be made of granit, not cement. And recent satellite photos reveal a network of what appears to be roads that extend from the location of the city all the way to the Bahamas and the Florida Keys. Also, underwater video shows that numerous blocks appear to be purposely placed on top of each other. Also Paulina Zelitsky who is the president of the Canadian-based company Advanced Digital Communication, stated that they don't believe that nature is capable of producing planned smmetrical architecture, unless it is a miracle. She stated, they are clearly man-made large-size architectural designs. She also stated, it was like flying over an urban development in a plane seeing highways, tunnels and buildings.
Also, if this was just a Cuban dump site, I'm sure Cuba's government would be aware of this.
You cannot tell the difference between concrete or any type or rock with side scan sonar.
Regarding Zelitsky's statement...Here is what she really said....
"It's a really wonderful structure which looks like it could have been a large urban center," said Soviet-born Canadian ocean engineer Paulina Zelitsky, "However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence," Zelitsky told Reuters.
She said nothing about miracles at all that I could find, and she would know that nature often mimics man mad objects. I see no mention of roads, but I did find this, which to me, makes their motives suspect....
Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig held out as long as possible for the best possible deal on world rights to release pictures and video footage of what had been found.
Since Advanced Digital Communications is right here in Victoria, I may just pay her a visit, and get the goods straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
You cannot tell the difference between concrete or any type or rock with side scan sonar.
Regarding Zelitsky's statement...Here is what she really said....
"It's a really wonderful structure which looks like it could have been a large urban center," said Soviet-born Canadian ocean engineer Paulina Zelitsky, "However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence," Zelitsky told Reuters.
She said nothing about miracles at all that I could find, and she would know that nature often mimics man mad objects. I see no mention of roads, but I did find this, which to me, makes their motives suspect....
Paulina Zelitsky and Paul Weinzweig held out as long as possible for the best possible deal on world rights to release pictures and video footage of what had been found.
Since Advanced Digital Communications is right here in Victoria, I may just pay her a visit, and get the goods straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
They did not use side scan sonar to determin the stone was not concrete. It was geologist Manuel Iturralde, senior researcher of Cuba's natural History Museum that sent down an ROV to confirm the presence of large blocks of stone 8 feet by 10 feet. Some being circular while others were rectangular, and some in the shape of pyramids. He also stated that it appeared that some of the blocks appeared deliberately stacked atop one another. It was Zelitsky that said that because of their white appearance underwater, the structures appear to be granite.
Campbell34, The link you provided when you responded to my post was written by Sean Pitman. I Googled his name and to no surprise he's a creationist and spends his time distorting evidence to support his cause.
No it will not. This does not deflect to a default of godunnit. If there is something to observe and study, the conclusion will come after the study, not like you folk want it done.
You assume they are man-made, that has not yet been proven, appear is the operative word. It still would not prove a global flood as we have ice cores dating back 750,000 years and that alone blows your flood out of the water.
Well I googled American school science curriculum and came up empty handed.
Evolution is not a belief. There are many facts to support it. Your creation crap is a belief as it is not supported by anything other than lame deflections to non scientific stuff just like this latest offering of yours.
How about those Ice cores, this is about the 15th time I have asked. A flood would float and melt that ice. Oh and BTW, we talk of ice cores all around the world but the Antarctic is the one with the greatest age.
Ask herr doktor Hovind if you cannot explain.
Evolution is a theory, and as I have stated before, all the other evidence that would put evolution into question is ignored, just like this recent find off of Cuba. This may very well become the new El Toro Figurine replacment.
Campbell34, The link you provided when you responded to my post was written by Sean Pitman. I Googled his name and to no surprise he's a creationist and spends his time distorting evidence to support his cause.
Well long before I even heard of Sean Pitman, I knew about the planes recovered in the 260 foot deep ice. So you can't blame the depth they found them at on Sean Pitman. And of course he is a creationist, did you think a believe in evolution would be telling you that story?
Evolution is a theory, and as I have stated before, all the other evidence that would put evolution into question is ignored, just like this recent find off of Cuba. This may very well become the new El Toro Figurine replacment.
So do you accept the reported age of this "underwater city"? 12,000 years doesn't fit with your creation theory, but in this case you will accept it, huh?
Evolution is a theory, and as I have stated before, all the other evidence that would put evolution into question is ignored, just like this recent find off of Cuba. This may very well become the new El Toro Figurine replacment.
Does that mean that after yammering for the last 50 pages about the figurines you're going to switch over to the vast underwater city near Cuba for the next 50 pages?
You misunderstand one very basic premise: Any evolutionist, even the people that you are arguing with on this site, would LOVE to be the person that found the smoking gun to prove evolution was false.
There is no motive to hide information on the evolution side. That only exist on the creation side. Scientist are equally rewarded for disproving or proving a theory. And any scientist would love to be able to prove evolution wrong, either in part or in whole, to the same extent they love to prove it right.
Science starts with evidence and from that forms a conclusion. Creationist start with a conclusion and from that form evidence. That's why all the evidence supports evolution right now.
Scientist and Preachers largely disagree on evolution. The scientific method of finding out the truth to this question is superior to the religious method.
Here again, the age of the Ice is assumed to be that old. Ice is not dated by counting annual layers, as some believe.
POYA again?
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.
GISP2 ice core at 1837 meters depth with clearly visible annual layers.
I guess you are going to say there is no 6 month winter in Antarctica and that the sun may have shined to create multiple layers per year?
Quote:
And a number of assumptions much like carbon dating is required to establish such a date. However, let me provide you with a better example to show you how the age of ice can not be trusted by it's depth. In 1942 six P-38's and two B-17's had to be ditched off the east coast of Greenland because they ran out of gas. In the year 1981 members of the original crew decided to try and recover their planes. When they got to the spot were they left them, it was their belief that they would be found in a few feet of snow. Yet when they got to the spot, the planes were no where to be found. They had to return in 1988 with detection equipment, and soon discovered their planes were not in a few feet of snow, but were to be found in 260 feet of snow. Now if they were doing ice core sampling here, Im sure they would of stated that the age of the ice here was thousands of years old. Yet the 260 feet of ice had built up to that depth in just 46 years. consider link below.
What does a sunken plane prove? It is heavier than water and ice is frozen water thus it sinks only slower.
Take an ice cube and place a penny on it, put the ice cube back in the freezer, lemme know what happens (after a year).
Perhaps you have not heard that the Antarctic weather stations need constant jacking up as they sink into the ice?
As usual you know nothing of how the scientists deal with dating and known problems. Educate yourself here but it is a long read. Ice core - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution is a theory, and as I have stated before, all the other evidence that would put evolution into question is ignored, just like this recent find off of Cuba.
Evolution is a Theory, backed up by facts.
Creations is a fairy tale backed up only by a bible. Where is your evidence other than the bible? I forgot, there is none apart from the AiG pseudoscience and these easily disputable offerings.
There is no such thing as a creation scientist maybe a cretin scientist.
For a more detailed account of theories as expressed in formal language as they are studied in mathematical logic see Theory (mathematical logic).
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
The problem with the YEC camp, you folk have the basest grasp of the English language. Maybe it is because you have been programed to read the language with -eths attached to the words in ye olde king Jamese English.
Rifleman has explained the ToE and I am simply showing you what the word Theory means.
See you have already begun with a presupposed conclusion and then look for facts to fit the conclusion.
Science takes the evidence, forms a hypothesis, and then draws conclusions of the observable facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
