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.
My father also died of Alzheimers, yet that being the case, I have told you before the figurines themselves would not disprove Evolution. I have stated that at least three times now. So it appears your the one not listening. And repeating myself once again, the figurines would put into serious question Evolutions timeline. And of course, anything that would put that timeline into serious question should be ignored. After all, that knowledge would be just a waste of time, RIGHT. And sad to say, this is the mind set of a true believe in Evolution. You have made my arguement.
And you have sunk your argument with the above bolded statement. That is exactly what you do by ignoring the vast amount of evidence from scientists, Christian and otherwise. You have also ignored many questions put to you here, in favour of you ridiculous idea that the purpose of science is to conspire against your beliefs...Well I got news for you. What you believe is not the least bit important to science. If you could present irrifutable proof that your young earth hypothesis is testable and correct it would be embraced as probably one of the most important discoveries ever. Unfortunately for your side all the evidence is to the contrary.
Many of todays scientist are not on a quest for knowledge, many are doing just the oppsite, which involoves covering up our distant past in order to prop up a theory that cannot stand on it's own legs. And I agree with Paulina Zelitsky. The city at the bottom of the sea got there because of an earthquake, which was the greatest earthquake of all time. And it was a result of the earths crust collapsing. And that is why the Bible states the earths fountains of the deep were opened up. And that is why other human construction and roads are being discovered below our seas, and all over the earth. When we have narrowed the time to just thousands of years, then we are very near the time of the flood, and as I have stated before, I believe man has been on the planet for at least 14,000 years. And that timeline, is well within my Biblical belief.
The above is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, and just plain wrong, but you continue to claim that Paulina Zelitsky made definitve statements when she did no such thing, as I have pointed out to you twice already.
I am beginning to think that her company, Advanced Digital Communications, (strange name for an ocean exploration firm ) does not, and never has existed....It certainly does not exist here in Victoria, as claimed, nor could I find any listing for it in Cuba.
When we have narrowed the time to just thousands of years, then we are very near the time of the flood, and as I have stated before, I believe man has been on the planet for at least 14,000 years. And the 12,000 years would be well within my Biblical belief.
So..... how do you explain all the phollowing phacts, like them varves in Lake Baikal, for example, that can be easily counted and show we've been here for millionssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss of years?
"Claim CH210: The earth is relatively young, about 10,000 years old or less. Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 158. Response:
Radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.5 billion years old (see CD010 regarding the reliability of radiometric dating).
If the earth is old, then radioactive isotopes with short half-lives should have all decayed already. That is what we find. Isotopes with half-lives longer than eighty million years are found on earth; isotopes with shorter half-lives are not, the only exceptions being those that are generated by current natural processes (Dalrymple 1991, 376-378).
Loess deposits (deposits of wind-blown silt) in China are 300 m thick. They give a continuous climate record for 7.2 million years. The record is consistent with magnetostratigraphy and habitat type inferred from fossils (Ding et al. n.d.; Russeau and Wu 1997; Sun et al. 1997).
Varves are annual sediment layers that occur in large lakes. They are straightforward to measure, cover millions of years, and correlate well with other dating mechanisms.
In seasonal areas, sedimentation rates vary across the year, so sediments often show annual layers (varves) distinguished by texture and/or composition. We can be confident that the layers are seasonal because we see the same sorts of layers occurring today. Even if they were not seasonal, the fineness of the sediments is often such that each layer would require several days, at least, to form. Some formations have millions of layers, such as the varve record from Lake Baikal with five million annual layers (Williams et al. 1997), and the 20,000,000 layers in the Green River formation. They must have taken hundreds of thousands of years to form at the very least.
Dates obtained by counting annual layers of varves match dates obtained from radiometric dating. One varve formation, covering 45,000 years, was used to calibrate carbon-14 dating using terrestrially produced leaves, twigs, and insect parts that also appeared in the sediments. The varves were easy to count because they included an annual diatom bloom (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998).
Varves record climate changes, too, since climate affects the amount of sediments. Climate is affected by orbital cycles known to occur at about 400,000-, 600,000-, and million-year periods (the so-called Milankovitch cycles). Climate cycles of these durations occur in the varve records. For example, Lake Baikal contains annual layers from twelve million years ago to the present. These sediments contain periodic changes matching the orbital cycles (Kashiwaya et al. 2001).
The abundance and distribution of helium change predictably as the sun ages, converting hydrogen to helium in its core. These parameters also affect how sound waves move through the sun. Thus one may estimate the sun's age from seismic solar data. Such an analysis puts the age of the sun at 4.66 billion years, plus or minus about 4 percent (Dziembowski et al. 1999)."
Which is a site devoted, I'd say, to categorically, and scientifically, and ruthlessly, debunking YEC/Creationist dogmatic nonsense.
Have phun readin' it. All the necessary scientific references are there; read the entire papers before you venture out into the street to yowl at the moon that "It just ain't so!".
In particular, it's phun to cycle through the "previous" and "next" claims and the thoughtful scientific responses provided therein. Soooooo much better than AiG!
Here is an interesting article about a new scientific paper by a chemist about the probable preconditions and chemical processes that brought about "living" entities early in Earth's history.
Why Life Originated (And Why it Continues)
//
In a recent study called “Why did life emerge?”, two scientists, son and father Arto Annila of the University of Helsinki and Erkki Annila of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, offer some insight into the general driving force of life’s origins in terms of thermodynamics. As they explain, all organisms are composed of molecules that assemble together via numerous chemical reactions. Just as heat flows from hot to cold, these molecules obey the universal tendency to diminish energy differences, so that the most likely chemical reactions are those in which energy flows “downhill” toward a stationary state, or chemical equilibrium.
Although the researchers don’t speculate on the specific chemical reactions that created life, they explain that the molecules involved most likely underwent a series of more and more complex reactions to minimize mutual energy differences between matter on Earth and with respect to high-energy radiation from Sun. The process eventually advanced so far that it cumulated into such sophisticated functional structures that could be called living.
“The most important idea in our study is that there is no distinction between animate and inanimate,” Arto Annila told PhysOrg.com. “Processes of life are, in their principles, no different from any other natural processes.”
//
This web page is a brief back-and-forth about the same article but with a suggestion of a candidate for the chemical make-up that could be the basis of a self-replicating molecule, which is another basic capability for what would become a living cell.
The above is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, and just plain wrong, but you continue to claim that Paulina Zelitsky made definitve statements when she did no such thing, as I have pointed out to you twice already.
I am beginning to think that her company, Advanced Digital Communications, (strange name for an ocean exploration firm ) does not, and never has existed....It certainly does not exist here in Victoria, as claimed, nor could I find any listing for it in Cuba.
Just plain wrong? What is Just plain wrong? Please, could you try to be a little more detailed. What definitve statements did she not make?
National Geographic says nothing about any evidence that does not agree with the theory of evolution, I though you would of understood that by now. They did get caught trying to push a false dinosaur bird.
Hey Tom: there's that question for you AGAIN. I can't count the number of times Seeker has asked you for your answer here. And then there's that "transitionals" definition I'm waitin' on. Perhaps you could start a little notepad of questions we've asked of you....
See, when you deny something, or call it out, but will not explain it, we just have to ask what you think of something. Like your blurted-out tired old statement about Evolotion being "just a theory" below. Your understanding of the word is flawed, yet you will never correct it, because to do so would be to realize you've been wrong all along.
You go, man! Love to hear what was actually said, tho' even if it's from the real person herself, our champion here will either refute it still, or figure you're a liar, or perhaps say that "The evil scientific community got to her, in their ongoing effort to hide anti-Evolution facts".
a) You are real gud at blurtin' out thet theyr standurd lyn, eh C34?
You are right; a theory, but since science defines what a theory means, you should perhaps be more careful! See BELOW: "theory", definition.
b) The El Toro figurines are rapidly, in my mind, becoming a dead issue, since not one of the five folks in Acambaro, MX that I wrote to has responded yet. The city no longer features them in the museum; perhaps the laughter level or serious inquiries got to be too embarrassing, and they realized they couldn't hoax it all any more.
So, if this is your next desperate ploy, and it follows the El Toro model of reality, go for it; it'll entertain us all for a while.
Theory: Definition courtesy of our friend Wiki: [as usual, my highlights in underlined blue for extra attention!]
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 colloquiallyto 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.
(rflmn's specialnote: I know you've read this last underlined sentence, Campbell, but did you grasp it? Will you stop in your... nah; that's unlikely. It's what you rely on.)
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.
QED.
I believe the polar Ice caps were formed after the flood, and I believe that the dates scientist believe from those Ice cores are wrong. One example I gave of this was the recovery of a WW II aircraft that landed in Greenland back in the 1940s when it ran out of gas. Some of the orginal crew decided to try and salvage their plane years later. They discovered that the ice over the plane was now 260 feet thick. Had your scientist taken ice cores samples of that area, no doubt they would of stated that the bottom ice must be thousands of years old. Many hundreds of layers of ice had to be melted away to reach the airplane. Yet in reality, only 46 years had passed. Now be it ice cores, or carbon dating. Everytime the age of the object in question is known, the ages given from the scientific testing is not even close to the reality of the actual age. And my conclusion is based on a common sense observation, of actual time reality.
National Geographic says nothing about any evidence that does not agree with the theory of evolution, I though you would of understood that by now. They did get caught trying to push a false dinosaur bird.
When are you going to stop with the biased sites? I suppose the magazine got fooled, but they did issue a retraction once it was pointed out to them.
Although "Archaeoraptor" was a forgery, many true examples of feathered dinosaurs have been found and demonstrate the evolutionary connection between birds and other theropods. Archaeoraptor was proven a forgery by scientists, not creationists, which only proves that science is honest and not involved in any conspiracy to disprove YEC...... So what's your point?
Speaking of timelines, ice and snow, here are a few fun facts.
The interior of Antarctica is the coldest place on earth with the lowest recorded temperature - 128.6 F
The Bently trench is covered with 9,840 feet of ice. The annual precipitation in the interior is 2 inches, which means that even if it was not compressed by the massive weight at that depth, it would take 59,040 years to accumulate.
Campbell I think to may have to adjust your idea of the age of the earth even further, from 14,000 years to perhaps 60,000 according to this evidence. I think you are more likely to claim that evil science who's purpose you think is a conspiracy to disprove the bible has again falsified the numbers.
So then Campbell, how does your flood myth deal with this? As usual I'm forced to post this again, because you have ignored it. When did the flood happen again?
Working as part of the National Science Foundation's West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide (WAIS Divide) Ice Core Project, a team of scientists, engineers, technicians, and students from multiple U.S. institutions have recovered a 580-meter (1,900-foot) ice core -- the first section of what is hoped to be a 3,465-meter (11,360-foot) column of ice detailing 100,000 years of Earth's climate history, including a precise year-by-year record of the last 40,000 years. New Antarctic Ice Core To Provide Clearest Climate Record Yet
1,900 feet of ice = 100,000 years, so 9,840 feet would reveal a record of well over 500,000 years as the deeper the ice, the greater the compression.
So then Campbell, how does your flood myth deal with this? As usual I'm forced to post this again, because you have ignored it. When did the flood happen again?
Working as part of the National Science Foundation's West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide (WAIS Divide) Ice Core Project, a team of scientists, engineers, technicians, and students from multiple U.S. institutions have recovered a 580-meter (1,900-foot) ice core -- the first section of what is hoped to be a 3,465-meter (11,360-foot) column of ice detailing 100,000 years of Earth's climate history, including a precise year-by-year record of the last 40,000 years. New Antarctic Ice Core To Provide Clearest Climate Record Yet
1,900 feet of ice = 100,000 years, so 9,840 feet would reveal a record of well over 500,000 years as the deeper the ice, the greater the compression.
Wow sanspeur, I guess you did not read my post. In 46 years Ice in Greenland built up to 260 feet. If your ice core is 1900 feet thick, and you divided that by 260 feet. It would take about 368 years to reach a depth of 2,090 feet. And that is based on the accumulation that was experience in Greenland. Your 100,000 years is what scientist assume the age of the ice to be. Yet, real time observations show us such accumulation can occur much faster.
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.
Merrily a'Debunkin' We'll Go...
