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.
The rejection of uniformity on no basis other than to explain why the earth is not millions of years old is not justified. Radiation, tree rings - everything has to inexplicably and pointlessly speed up in order to cram the evidence of millions of years into a few thousands.
.
It is incorrect to suppose that the only basis to reject uniformity is because some believe the earth is not millions of years old. For instance, I believe the earth **could be** millions of years old. But it is a lapse in logic to state that if the polar ice is not millions of years old then the earth cannot be.
The polar ice can be 4,000 some years old and at the same time the earth can be millions of years old.
Basically, the article shows that due to the vast amount of warm water covering the earth due to the historic world-wide flood in Noah's day, as the water evaporated it formed snow at the now cold polar caps and spread out from there.
It is actually good that I am confronting the evolutionist religion and uniformitarian ideas here so that they can be seen for what they really are: bogus.
They also wrote: " So now when skeptics come to comprehend the solid science confirming the global flood vividly described in the book of Genesis, solid science here http://detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html, the reasons to believe all of the Bible become even more apparent, much to the darwinists’ woe."
It is incorrect to suppose that the only basis to reject uniformity is because some believe the earth is not millions of years old. For instance, I believe the earth **could be** millions of years old. But it is a lapse in logic to state that if the polar ice is not millions of years old then the earth cannot be.
The polar ice can be 4,000 some years old and at the same time the earth can be millions of years old.
Basically, the article shows that due to the vast amount of warm water covering the earth due to the historic world-wide flood in Noah's day, as the water evaporated it formed snow at the now cold polar caps and spread out from there.
It is actually good that I am confronting the evolutionist religion and uniformitarian ideas here so that they can be seen for what they really are: bogus.
They also wrote: " So now when skeptics come to comprehend the solid science confirming the global flood vividly described in the book of Genesis, solid science here The Fossil Record, the reasons to believe all of the Bible become even more apparent, much to the darwinists’ woe."
That idiot site of Pitman's has already been dealt with over on Ham/Nye.
The Genesis university site is even harder to read and very poor stuff
"When darwinists say the biblical timeline is impossible because carbon 14 dates are older than the age of the earth according to the Bible, just tell them that volcanism was prolific during the Ice Age, which was the bronze age, and therefore that the dates which they cite are greatly exaggerated."
What on earth...? Instead of addressing the point by perhaps arguing against c14 dates, they change the subject to nonsense about volcanoes (the ice age was NOT the bronze age) which of course have been going on all the time there has been an earth. And then it pulls out the stuff about the coelacanth.
You are just making yourself a laughing stock with this tripe, old son.
And your own efforts are not much better.
"The polar ice can be 4,000 some years old and at the same time the earth can be millions of years old."
You think your '2nd earth' wheeze can get you out of Argument from ancient rocks? It doesn't get you out of the evidence for millions of years of evolution Aka a Young earth 2nd earth - eden to flood creationism scenario.
Nor does it get you out of evidence backed up by radiometric dating that the Ice cores (not the rocks.) demonstrate many thousands of years, even a million or more, in the deepest time cores.
What I have in my pipe smokes quite well enough, thanks
That idiot site of Pitman's has already been dealt with over on Ham/Nye.
The Genesis university site is even harder to read and very poor stuff
"When darwinists say the biblical timeline is impossible because carbon 14 dates are older than the age of the earth according to the Bible, just tell them that volcanism was prolific during the Ice Age, which was the bronze age, and therefore that the dates which they cite are greatly exaggerated."
What on earth...? Instead of addressing the point by perhaps arguing against c14 dates, they change the subject to nonsense about volcanoes (the ice age was NOT the bronze age) which of course have been going on all the time there has been an earth. And then it pulls out the stuff about the coelacanth.
You are just making yourself a laughing stock with this tripe, old son.
And your own efforts are not much better.
"The polar ice can be 4,000 some years old and at the same time the earth can be millions of years old."
You think your '2nd earth' wheeze can get you out of Argument from ancient rocks? It doesn't get you out of the evidence for millions of years of evolution Aka a Young earth 2nd earth - eden to flood creationism scenario.
Nor does it get you out of evidence backed up by radiometric dating that the Ice cores (not the rocks.) demonstrate many thousands of years, even a million or more, in the deepest time cores.
What I have in my pipe smokes quite well enough, thanks
Just admit it ole friend, you are wrong. I know, I know, it takes a bit of choking down the pride but in the long run it will be better for you.
Actually the Genesis University link I showed is quite easy to read. For you folks that didn't see it on that page, there is a video: Mary Schweitzer's 60 Minutes Interview which totally debunks the standard understanding of the age of dinosaurs.
And Pitman does an excellent job of debunking the common day evolutionary column.
You can hardly expect me to sign up to your faith-based denial - without a Shred of credible evidence. In fact I am sure you don't even mean it seriously.
As always, I don't care what you believe and I have to go with the information that seems less based on either ignorance or dishonesty (my money's on the latter, as the ones that have to be a bit honest are gradually adding to the list of 'arguments Creationists should not use' on AiG).
So it really is the usual business of letting others see both sides of the argument and make their own mind up. I am content with that and will continue with it - just in case you though you were going to shut me up (or down) with bland denial.
You can hardly expect me to sign up to your faith-based denial - without a Shred of credible evidence. In fact I am sure you don't even mean it seriously.
As always, I don't care what you believe and I have to go with the information that seems less based on either ignorance or dishonesty (my money's on the latter, as the ones that have to be a bit honest are gradually adding to the list of 'arguments Creationists should not use' on AiG).
So it really is the usual business of letting others see both sides of the argument and make their own mind up. I am content with that and will continue with it - just in case you though you were going to shut me up (or down) with bland denial.
Cool! I watched the 60 minute clip. Notice how the scientific community scrambled to make excuses! And the woman that discovered this was afraid to make it known. Now they just have to figure out how blood vessels could stay in soft tissue state for millions of years! Kind of like the Mammoths that were found in Siberia with food in their bellies that was edible.
But, Eusebius, it's not the 'cat out of the bag'. Maybe you should say, "Chicken out of the bag"!
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005). CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone
Remarkable, but it it is being overdone in some kind of attempt to make a case for dinosaurs being around in the last few thousand years. It does not. The tissue is effectively fossil tissue like any other fossil, and supports a young earth no more than any other fossil or fossil strata does.
You may both cling the what no doubt looks to you like T-rexgate as part of propping up a Young (2nd) earth scenario and hopefully a flood, Ark and all the rest, including Jonah's three days in a fish belly. I can only invite others to look at the Soft tissue case on both sides and see who is telling the whole story and who is being selective with the facts in hopes to fabricate a case.
"The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005). CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone
Of course they know the tissue was original tissues.
These are exact words from the video of Mary doing the experiment over and over for 60 Minutes:
Mary Schweitzer, in her interview with 60 Minutes, stated she did the experiment over and over again with the same results. It was reported in the video: "And yet, in sample after sample they were there, things that look suspiciously like transparent blood vessels." "The things Mary was finding inside dinosaur bones: blood vessels and even what seemed to be intact cells, pose a radical challenge to existing rules of science, that organic material can't survive even a million years let alone sixty eight million." "Mary, Jack and their team published their B-Rex findings in a series of papers in the journal Science and were promptly attacked. Critics said that their samples might have been contaminated or that the blood vessels were biofilm. But as Mary showed us, she's been able to replicate her findings." She then showed doing an 80 million year old Duckbill and showing blood vessels. Mary said she does this over and over and over again and gets excited every time.
Cool! I watched the 60 minute clip. Notice how the scientific community scrambled to make excuses! And the woman that discovered this was afraid to make it known. Now they just have to figure out how blood vessels could stay in soft tissue state for millions of years! Kind of like the Mammoths that were found in Siberia with food in their bellies that was edible.
But, Eusebius, it's not the 'cat out of the bag'. Maybe you should say, "Chicken out of the bag"!
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005). CC371.1: Tyrannosaurus tissues from bone
Remarkable, but it it is being overdone in some kind of attempt to make a case for dinosaurs being around in the last few thousand years. It does not. The tissue is effectively fossil tissue like any other fossil, and supports a young earth no more than any other fossil or fossil strata does.
You may both cling the what no doubt looks to you like T-rexgate as part of propping up a Young (2nd) earth scenario and hopefully a flood, Ark and all the rest, including Jonah's three days in a fish belly. I can only invite others to look at the Soft tissue case on both sides and see who is telling the whole story and who is being selective with the facts in hopes to fabricate a case.
I went through a lot of this material, and as far as I can tell, in the first photos from the "talk reason" article, the one on the left looks like a tree branch...the one on the right looks like a piece of pepperoni pizza!
And seriously, since when does the date of the death of a dinosaur have any determining factor upon the age of the earth? The earth may well be millions, or even billions of years old. The living matter upon it is a different question altogether. The first sentence of the Bible witnesses to that. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." No date, time, or sequence is given. When was the "beginning"? Your guess is as good as mine!
My reference to fresh food in the Mammoths comes from the men that found the Beresovka Mammoth, and their dogs had to be pulled away from eating it. It is also interesting that the Niagra Falls have been calculated to be less than 7000 years old by determining the rate of decay from flow water over time.
I also spent considerable hours reading up on the different kinds of age dating methods. I had always taken science on it's word for this, but after reading this material, I see that the dating methods are anything but accurate. I Googled "the reliability of radiometric dating methods" and was deluged by information. (pun intended). What I learned, I won't attempt to write on, or I would be here for days; but suffice it to say, these methods are not in any way to be trusted. There are just too many variables. Anyone wanting more information should use Google. You'll get more than enough info.
One other interesting note that I got from these dating methods, was, that water leaching and water movement around a sample in the past, gives the sample a much older age.
In the case of the Beresovka Mammoth and other mammoths, refrigeration experts were brought in to determine how cold and for how long it would take to freeze a mammoth to keep food in a relatively fresh state within it's belly and mouth. To deep freeze an animal of that size in the required time to keep the food fresh would have taken temperatures of well below 150*F, over a time of just a few minutes, and that just doesn't occur in nature without a catastrophic event. And, as I have said before, the Mars theory explains the volcanic activity on the inner planets and earth, the atmospheric drop in temperature, the huge amounts of ice, the uplifting of the mountains, the change in the year from 360 days, the development of the Greek and Roman mythology, and the atmospheric condensation to bring about a world-wide rain, quite nicely.
Last edited by trumpethim; 02-18-2014 at 02:56 PM..
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.
site is even harder to read and very poor stuff
