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.
Take a box of soft feathers and drop one more feather into it. What happens to the feather?
Drop a metal object into the same bed of feathers, what happens to the object?
Snow crystallizes into ice and thus the subsequent snow sits atop the previous season's fall. The subsequent year's snowfall does not sink into the previous years ice.
Your aircraft are heavier than water and in time will sink into the ice.
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.
You mentioned earlier that these "granite" blocks were not from Cuba.
If not from there then where did it come from?
You do not need to answer. I am sure that Cuba has granite quarries, not like granite is a localized resource limited to the USA, we have it here in Africa too.
Granite is currently known only on Earth where it forms a major part of continental crust. Granite often occurs as relatively small, less than 100 km² stock masses (stocks) and in batholiths that are often associated with orogenicmountain ranges. Small dikes of granitic composition called aplites are often associated with the margins of granitic intrusions. In some locations very coarse-grained pegmatite masses occur with granite.
Granite has been intruded into the crust of the Earth during all geologic periods, although much of it is of Precambrian age. Granitic rock is widely distributed throughout the continental crust of the Earth and is the most abundant basement rocksedimentary that underlies the relatively thin veneer of the continents.
I'm believe man's existance my go back to about 14,000 years.
You are making progress...First it was about 6,000 years, then you said you would accept 10,000 years, and now 14,000...Only a few billion to go to agree with what science has discovered by dating rocks in the Canadian Shield at 4.5 billion years.
Here again, the age of the Ice is assumed to be that old. Ice is not dated by counting annual layers, as some believe. 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.
The magic of google: Twin Ice Cores From Greenland Reveal History of Climate Change, More (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html - broken link)
Locked within two cores of ancient ice is evidence of unprecedented swings in Earth's climate throughout the ages. These icy archives tell us that large, rapid, global change is more the norm for the Earth's climate than is stasis.
by R. Alley, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park; P. Mayewski, University of New Hampshire, Durham; D. Peel, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England; and B. Stauffer, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Two projects conducted from 1989 to 1993 collected parallel ice cores just 30 kilometers apart from the central part of the Greenland ice sheet. Each core is more than 3 kilometers deep and extends back 110,000 years. In short, the ice cores tell a clear story: humans came of age agriculturally and industrially during the most stable climatic regime recorded in the cores. They also indicate that today, Greenland is roughly 20°C warmer than it once was.
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?
I believe man has been on the earth around 14,000 years. I don't know the age of the city, and it would require more information for me to say how long it's been there.
You mentioned earlier that these "granite" blocks were not from Cuba.
If not from there then where did it come from?
You do not need to answer. I am sure that Cuba has granite quarries, not like granite is a localized resource limited to the USA, we have it here in Africa too.
Granite is currently known only on Earth where it forms a major part of continental crust. Granite often occurs as relatively small, less than 100 km² stock masses (stocks) and in batholiths that are often associated with orogenicmountain ranges. Small dikes of granitic composition called aplites are often associated with the margins of granitic intrusions. In some locations very coarse-grained pegmatite masses occur with granite.
Granite has been intruded into the crust of the Earth during all geologic periods, although much of it is of Precambrian age. Granitic rock is widely distributed throughout the continental crust of the Earth and is the most abundant basement rocksedimentary that underlies the relatively thin veneer of the continents.
It was Paulina Zelitsky that describes the structures as polished Granite, and it was she who stated that this granite is not indigenous to Cuba or the Yucatan. The link also stated that the National Geographic Society continues to express intrest in adding resources and media production efforts to the exploration, BUT TO DATE NO OFFICIAL CONTRACT HAS BEEN SIGNED.
WOW, WHAT A SURPRISE. Perhaps one of the greatest discoveries of the western world, and National Geographic after 8 years still can't get their act together. I WONDER WHY?
It was Paulina Zelitsky that describes the structures as polished Granite, and it was she who stated that this granite is not indigenous to Cuba or the Yucatan. The link also stated that the National Geographic Society continues to express intrest in adding resources and media production efforts to the exploration, BUT TO DATE NO OFFICIAL CONTRACT HAS BEEN SIGNED.
WOW, WHAT A SURPRISE. Perhaps one of the greatest discoveries of the western world, and National Geographic after 8 years still can't get their act together. I WONDER WHY?
I see that your fundie site says polished granite, but they are misrepresenting what she said. She did not say it was polished granite....She said it could be granite...Big difference.
She also said.... "It looks like when you fly over an urban development in a plane and you see highways, tunnels and buildings.
We don't know what it is, and we don't have the videotaped evidence of this yet.
In 2007 she said this...."However, it would be totally irresponsible to say what it was before we have evidence."
Her above statement sure doesn't stop the fundie sites lying and misrepresenting the entire thing does it.
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.
Scientist are so into their theory of Evolution, it's like a religion. And your belief that they would like to disprove the theory is a false one. They have had numerous chances to consider other evidence that would put their theory to the test, yet everytime, they fail to do so. Just recently they discovered what appears to be a city off of Cuba's western coast, a half mile below the surface of the sea. Yet where are all these scientist that want to disprove Evolution? It's been eight years since the discovery, yet it appears like so many other finds, these scientist don't appear to be to intrested. The Bible does not require a method to finding the truth. It is the truth, and that is why the Bible continues to be shown accurate by historical discovery. The scientific method of finding the truth is fine, yet you will never find the truth unless your willing to consider all the evidence, and it appears science is not willing to do that.
Take a box of soft feathers and drop one more feather into it. What happens to the feather?
Drop a metal object into the same bed of feathers, what happens to the object?
Snow crystallizes into ice and thus the subsequent snow sits atop the previous season's fall. The subsequent year's snowfall does not sink into the previous years ice.
Your aircraft are heavier than water and in time will sink into the ice.
The planes had many layers of ice over them, and the planes were not heavier then water, because they were still hollow inside and displace the ice around them. The planes did not sink, they were covered by hundreds of layers of snow. And science would of stated that each one of those layers represented a year. And again, science would of been wrong.
The planes had many layers of ice over them, and the planes were not heavier then water, because they were still hollow inside and displace the ice around them. The planes did not sink, they were covered by hundreds of layers of snow. And science would of stated that each one of those layers represented a year. And again, science would of been wrong.
What does the hollowness of a plane have to do with the mass and density of it? Your argument assumes that the aircraft in question has enough air inside it to make it float. Not to mention that the cabin has to be vaccuum tight to ensure no air is leaked. You will find in fact that an aircraft is denser than water and will sink. How can you make assumptions of science without providing proof to backup your claims? The mere reasoning behind science is that it is skeptical and strives to provide evidence to prove or disprove claims.
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.
