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.
sanspeur, to my knowledge the person who recovered the planes was not a Christian, and he was the one who made the statement. So I have no idea what you are even talking about. This is kind of like you trying to say that Christians misrepresented what Paulina Zelitsky said about polished granite, when in fact, that report came to us from Linda Moulton Howe who has nothing to do with Christian sites. The only one who is looking foolish here sanspeur, is the one who does not have his facts right. And next time your car is buried in snow, maybe you should have them do one of those ice core samples. You might find out that your car has actually been out in the snow for 500 years. LOL
lol, that is funny Campbell (and probably true too)!
Yeah I am sure rapidly moving glaciers are the best place to get long term ice cores.
Admit it you have been soundly debunked AGAIN - it is sooo easy with someone that does no research before posting like *cough* Campbell34.
Aah, cannot answer the question thus deflection.
Go on then - bring it. I love debunking you.
Seeing we are in deflect mode, how about those cave formations in South Africa? Oh wait you cannot answer that as AiG does not have a branch here.
YEC is for the uneducated or intellectually challenged folk only.
Whatever you do, there is always a way to connect the dots in evolution but that requires an open mind.
YEC fails in biology
YEC fails in geology
YEC fails in paleontology
YEC fails in paleoclimatology
YEC fails in every single discipline of science
There is in fact no valid scientific discipline that the YEC can disprove w/o quote mining and fabrication of of their own preferred "facts".
Now we are onto pyramids - yup I google your deflections and they are all woo woo sites - why? They all mostly use black backgrounds like this one: Rock Lake Pyramids
Posting the Paranormal Since 1997
Later in the page
Looking forParanormal Investigating Equipment? Find it all at GetGhostGear.com
And you wonder why scientists are not interested?
Everything I mentioned has been documented, yet none of it has been considered by science. You act as if this is all Fairy Tales. And you act like those in science are not intrested because the evidence dosen't exist.
The truth is, National Geographic knows about the discovery off of Cuba. The El Toro Figurines are known of worldwide. The 10 pyramids at the bottom of Rock Lake Wi have been know about for years. And divers in recent days relocated them again. And yes, I do wonder why scientist refuse to consider evidence they very well know exist. And I wonder why do you try to pretend this evidence is non-existant? And of course, it does require an open mind to consider this evidence. You have numerous people telling you what is there, and you and your scientist turn your deaf ears away. Why?
Everything I mentioned has been documented, yet none of it has been considered by science. You act as if this is all Fairy Tales. And you act like those in science are not intrested because the evidence dosen't exist.
The truth is, National Geographic knows about the discovery off of Cuba. The El Toro Figurines are known of worldwide. The 10 pyramids at the bottom of Rock Lake Wi have been know about for years. And divers in recent days relocated them again. And yes, I do wonder why scientist refuse to consider evidence they very well know exist. And I wonder why do you try to pretend this evidence is non-existant? And of course, it does require an open mind to consider this evidence. You have numerous people telling you what is there, and you and your scientist turn your deaf ears away. Why?
You know I swear you have Alzheimers and my dad died from that so I do not say it lightly.
Your figurines would not disprove evolution
You lost city would not disprove evolution
All of this is woo woo pseudoscience and there is no real benefit to explore and waste money on something that may be near and dear to your heart.
Some of your recent offerings and the folk that are interested in them also are into UFO's and sea monsters and bigfoot et al.
The YEC camp have not produced one credible scientist and all your "experts" are not qualified in the fields they comment on so that is as good as your or my opinion.
Your pyramids in some lake would prove what exactly?
Paulina Zelitsky has been steadfast in her theory of the collapse of the city as a result of a powerful earthquake more than 12,000 years ago .
"All the team’s scientists are in agreement with the understanding that the geologic formation of the Yucatan Peninsula is as a result of seismic activity.
The time line is outside your so called flood but of course little facts like that I suppose do not matter in la la land.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
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 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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
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.
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.
We are now living in a world in which sufficient, in fact, overwhelming evidence is at hand that Evolution is an established fact. Why?
first; it was a common-sense concept as originally defined by Darwin, even though he did not understand the mechanism; he knew that if his theory was correct, certain predictable things would be observable.
second; all those predictions were immediately obvious, which is a good clue that one is on the right track. Subsequent more intricate predictions have also, been found to be absolutely true.
(no such luck on the Christian side; none of their prophesies has incontrovertibly come true. [look up "incontrovertibly"] and many of their explanations are either nonsense [Noah's Ark] or have been summarily disproven [Genesis])
third; subsequent science (Watson & Crick) discovered the means by which information is encoded and recorded for subsequent generations. They were not looking for any explanation of "Evolution", but....
fourth; as usual, a good theory (which is in fact, the thruth) will, of course, support reasonable predictions, and when the mechanisms of DNA and RNA became obvious, it also became obvious as to how they were altered in the natural world, and thus how an organism's genotype might change, and thus...
fifth: make it a potentially better fit in it's ever-changing world. In other words, Watson & Crick's work dovetailed into the ever-more supported and provable "theory" of Evolution.
sixth: other unrelated research in geology and paleontology, ditto, dovetailed EXACTLY into the growing unified components of Evolutionary theory (that's in the scholarly definition, not the lazyman's colloquial definition).
seventh: the very recent science of DNA genome mapping has now provided precise, readable and logical final proof of the transition of the genomes of heredity, of species' trait-tracing, and of direct and even distant ancestry. This has lead to...
eighth: such benchmark research as Lenski, et al, 2008; where he was able, though DNA genome mapping technologies, to examine the genome of over 44,000 generations of an organism, and spot the exact moment at which a chance mutation led to indisputablespeciation. Indisputable.
Thus, Evolution as a mechanism for species diversification, once life has arisen, is a Fact. A set of proven hypotheses, proved predictions and confirmed conclusions, known in scholarly worlds as "A Theory". QED.
So. At this point, we are not faced with inexplicable events that defy Evolution; rather we, of course, look to see how they do fit into the Fact of Evolution. In the end, they ALWAYS do, without a lot of pounding of square facts into round holes, as is the usual case with apologist Christian anti-evolutionary dogma.
Sadly, a shrinking component of the world, largely scientifically illiterate and intent of remaining that way, still refute this now-proven fact. Some even persist that the Earth is Flat!
is duplicated in many religions, as they gamely fight to deny proven facts. Even in the face of masses of checked, verified and established evidence, they cling to old-fashioned counter-arguments (such as studies done by Miller on amino acids in 1953, over 56 years ago...) as theirproof of the illegitimacy of science and Evolution.
This evidence, for Evolution, (and much of other unrelated scientific findings in geology, etc.) continues to put a final stake through the heart of much of Christianity, and is thus violently rejected in the name of God...
Their response is expected, given it's implications on their life-beliefs.
To the OP, given the evolution of the human brain as a series of decision-making nueronal connections and logic circuits, it enables us to abstractly think about our futures, about the implications of our actions on others, and thus to evolve, along with our physical and chemical minds, a set of ethical rules. No god or soul required. Just functioning chemistry.
Last edited by rifleman; 04-28-2009 at 11:36 AM..
Reason: typos
I am still reading up on your idiot doktor and what is interesting but not really surprising, he debunks dust settlement in ice core saying that they remobilize due to ice water.
[SIZE=3]This study goes on to reveal that each yearly cycle is marked not by one distinct annual dust concentration as is normally assumed when counting ice core layers, but by two distinct dust concentration peaks – one in late winter-spring and another one in the late summer-fall. So, each year is initially marked by “two seasonal maxima of dust deposition.†By itself, this finding cuts in half those ice core dates that assume that each year is marked by only one distinct deposition of dust. This would still be a salvageable problem if the dust actually stayed put once it was deposited in the snow. But, it does not stay put – it moves![/SIZE]
So an aircraft with a SG greater than ice cannot move yet dust particles can? Thus in one page he contradicts himself.
My guess is that anyone in the YEC camp with a PhD, MD, after his/her name is assumed to be authoritative but alas as we have seen here in this thread too many times, it ain't so.
I am sure if I took the time, I would debunk his entire argument but seeing he cites non peer reviewed scientist's publications, my guess it would be a waste of time. I have no degrees behind my name. Maybe my high school science ed was enough to debunk these charlatans .
Which is what you're talking about here. within a varve there are often variations of color that are the obvious and logical direct result of ecological (depositional) variants over a season. Additionally, there may be unusual storms, or runoff, that can introduce a unique or occasional intra-varve layer (within a specific varve layer).
However. (ahem ahem), the overall varve pttern is never indistinguishably altered to appear as though an additional year's deposition has occurred. Rather, an anomalous layer appears, always easily distinguished from the terminal outer defining layers, through coloration, particulate composition (under extreme magnification, or other more advanced techniques, including X-Ray fluorescence or chromatographic separation).
This argument has been well addressed in the literature, since it was, of course, brought up very early in varve analysis within the self-policing scientific community. They recognized the possible confusion, and thus the researchers of the day took it upon themselves to resolve the issue to the point of being quite capable of separating out those anomalous events and tagging them. Any true geologist or "varveologist" will quite quickly defuse any such argument, however if one were to use very early, very old documentation as one's irrefutible source, one might well conclude that there still remains some confusion on the issue.
Read these following links for more discussion of intra-varve layer separation. I will warn you; this is not science for AiG enthusiasts; this is the real thing, full of multi-syllable words and complex situational concepts.
The "intra-varve variation" argument has been thoroughly covered in the literature, unfortunately for the simplisitc reviews aimed at debunking ice core and lake analysis. The science now available, including isotopic analysis of sediment variants, pretty much steps on the scrawny neck of some lazyman's purposefulmis-interpretation of the data.
Note that this last link references the FACT that pollen scatter only happens once a year, and distinct and unique pollen forms can be cross-checked so as to even provide an accurate chronological sequence for an individual varve that is only several thousands of an inch think (which happens under compression of ice or sediment). So, despite some possible conflicts from anomolous dust or precipitation storms that might otherwise slightly confuse the evidence, there is rarely, if ever, a mistake now made in the number of actual annual varves counted. That's the inerrant value of cross-checked information sources. (Oh, and, one of these researchers is a good buddy of mine, having spent time in the arctic with me... I can call him/er up if you'd like to refute this in person, Tom... Your knowledge against his/er's?)
Also note my series within C-D on how we analysed varves in the NE RockY Mountains, proofed against known hydrologic event history, to accurately predict(there's that ugly word again...) future events. Turns out we were right! 100%.
Careful, C34; I can bury you here in a moment, and your AiG "fact-book" will only embarrass you. Dependably.
Always remember Clint Eastwood's philosophies: "A man's got to know his limitations", or, perhaps more to the point, "You feelin' lucky, punk? Well? Are yah?"
Last edited by rifleman; 04-28-2009 at 02:59 PM..
Reason: typos
You know I swear you have Alzheimers and my dad died from that so I do not say it lightly.
Your figurines would not disprove evolution
You lost city would not disprove evolution
All of this is woo woo pseudoscience and there is no real benefit to explore and waste money on something that may be near and dear to your heart.
Some of your recent offerings and the folk that are interested in them also are into UFO's and sea monsters and bigfoot et al.
The YEC camp have not produced one credible scientist and all your "experts" are not qualified in the fields they comment on so that is as good as your or my opinion.
Your pyramids in some lake would prove what exactly?
Paulina Zelitsky has been steadfast in her theory of the collapse of the city as a result of a powerful earthquake more than 12,000 years ago .
"All the team’s scientists are in agreement with the understanding that the geologic formation of the Yucatan Peninsula is as a result of seismic activity.
The time line is outside your so called flood but of course little facts like that I suppose do not matter in la la land.
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.
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 the 12,000 years would be well within my Biblical belief.
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.
Evolution As A Fact
