Reply With Quote
I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to geologic shift much. However, I do know that 99% of scientists believe in tectonic plate movement, and that's good enough for me, honestly.
I don't care what plates or continental drift you bring up there is no evidence the Missipppii can be as old as your Atheist's friends claim the earth is. and really am glad you pulled out the continental drift card, please answer this....
The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America. It runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco. It is said to move from 1/2 to 2 inches per year. 85 How long has it been moving for? The answer varies greatly. Some say it has moved for tens of miles, and others say perhaps hundreds. The evidence is highly questionable.86 There are a few granite outcrops that hint that it may have moved 12,000 feet;87 however this too is questionable since the origin of granite itself is uncertain. Some geologists believe most granites are igneous while others believe the majority are metamorphic. 88 If the granite referred to above is of volcanic origin, then it could have come straight up out of the ground.One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. 89 The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all. This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old. See also >>>Continental Drift.<<<
I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to geologic shift much. However, I do know that 99% of scientists believe in tectonic plate movement, and that's good enough for me, honestly.
(micro evolution) doesn't have to stop. birds and insects all over the world are always changing to adapt to their surroundings. No one here has ever disputed (micro) evolution does not exist ("with in" each species.)
You can get Doodle if you keep mating a Doberman with a poodle. You can't get a Dog or a bird from a rat ing an armadillo.. According to insult master Blake and your wise friend Sahsafan who is so educated. man evolved from snails billions of yours ago. And I am still waiting for the proof.
In case this is to far advance for your limited thinking....micro evolution is like Toyota taking over and building motorcycles and wheel chairs. They don't make apple pies and Chopped beef sandwiches that is the where the line is,that is where they stop.
I hope some of this is helping you I can see your a lost man and in bad need of education. just remember you can agree with mouse and not have to admit there is a God. That seems to be why many here pick sides they forget about the third option. Alternative design.
The Big Bang Theory is in Big Trouble
Part Three of a Five-Part Series on The Age of the Earth.Another pillar on which Old Earth beliefs rest is the Big Bang, and the proposed slow expansion of the Universe. However, recent discoveries are suggesting that something is wrong with the Big Bang theory itself and the way it has been portrayed to the public. That's because astronomers and cosmologists really DON'T have it all figured out yet: and not only this, but they may not even be on the right track. For example, it has been said that:"The currently popular cosmological model is subject to many doubts based upon observational data which suggest that, perhaps, there never was a Big Bang." 1This statement came from three highly respected astronomers and was published in a prestigious scientific journal in 1990. More recently though, another science article carried the following introductory headline:"There's not one crisis but two: the universe seems to be younger than the stars in it, and a huge chunk of it is headed in the wrong direction, fast. As cosmologists scramble for answers, no theory is safe anymore." 2The theory of the Big Bang was first conceived as a result of the work of American astronomer, Edwin Hubble. Hubble was the first to propose the idea of an expanding Universe. 3 If he is correct, and if we could travel back into the past, to the beginning of time, before it all expanded (or so the theory goes), then there must have been a time when everything was clumped together into one tiny ball of matter. And then we are told that something happened...
All of the sudden, this tiny clump of matter is supposed to have exploded into a Big Bang, and then Vwuallah! Seven to 20 billion years later (depending on whom you ask, and what year you asked them), here we are... without any sort of Intelligence to plan out, or act upon any of that matter. And as preposterous as this is to the laws of nature, and logic, and common sense itself, it is still the ONLY viewpoint that is allowed to be taught in public school classrooms today: for any viewpoint that even HINTS at the (STRONG) probability of a Creator being involved is said to be off limits (to so-called "science" and logic), and out of the realm of "science", and therefore should not be allowed to be examined and explored, much less even mentioned to our curious kids: who (we are supposed to believe) shouldn't be exposed to logic and common sense, but rather ONLY to progressive liberal fantasies that don't make sense.
Those who promote this theory also usually speculate that this small clump of matter, that contained all the matter in the universe, was no larger than a golf ball.
In other words, the Big Bang theory speculates that out of a great chaotic explosion came all of the order and complexity that we see around us today, with no intelligence required to plan out, design or build anything. In reality though, this theory is nothing more than an attempt by men (whose knowledge is quite limited) to try and explain how they think we might have been created without a Creator. For this reason, the Big Bang theory goes hand in hand with the theory of evolution, which is an attempt to do likewise. Small wonder that those who promote the Big Bang are also, more often than not, believers in evolution.
In reality though, astronomers are not even sure that the Universe is expanding. 4,5,6 That's because no one has ever seen it doing so. Rather the expansion of the Universe (theory) is based on indirect evidence, such as the red shift of many stars and galaxies.
Some scientists are also trying to tell us that the cosmic microwave background radiation (or CMB) also supports the belief in an expanding Universe; however, as we shall see, the actual data appears to contradict it.
Last edited by Alex Jones; 10-19-2009 at 08:54 AM.
That isn't what the theory of evolution says.
Modern apes and humans actually have a common ancestor. Man did not evolve from apes. The relationship is more like us being cousins than anything else.
Species only really become extinct because something moves into their ecological niche and outcompetes them for food or the environment for which they have adapted changes.
Phytoplankton evolved billions of years ago, but they are still around, as are sulphur-eating bacteria at the bottom of the ocean.
99% of ST said Manu needed to be traded. Are you that shallow to just go with the flow?
Did you know your hero's the scientist told the public at one time asbestos is good for you, and cigarette's also?
You believe what you want just don't put lies in the text books and you will be ok my friend.
Last edited by Alex Jones; 10-19-2009 at 09:01 AM.
"in the near future there will not be anymore apes"
All large mammals are under pressure for the World Champion Killer Mammal. Predictions are that most large mammals will be wiped out in the natural habitats and exist only in the zoos of World Champion Killer Mammal.
What up cuz?
Cooling Planets The universe is falling apart, that is for sure; some of the planets are cooling off rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it. You cannot keep cooling off till pretty soon you are cooled off. .....and yet scientist claim some planets are getting hotter?
If you put a hot cup of coffee on a table and come back 4 billion years later it doesn't get hotter it cools down. If the solar system was 1/2 the age scientist claim it is the sun should be as cool as the back of a Eskimos ass by now.
The rings are less than 4 billion years old. What does that prove? I'm waiting intently on this answer.
You mean facts like they have found dead trees that are around 60 million years old? Or the simple fact that antibiotic resistance occurs? Those types of facts?And since yo took on the role of stand up comedian of the topic how about taking 4 minutes of your lonely so sex getting life and start posting some facts yo help out your buddy Blake?
lol at people who think rivers have always been where they are now.Mississippi Mud ..... Did you know 80,000 tons of mud every hour comes down the Mississippi and dumps off in New Orleans? The Delta is growing larger and larger and larger. Nobody argues about that. But, they studied the Delta because they drill through it all the time looking for oil down there; they know the thickness of the mud, that is not a problem. Based on the amount of mud that comes down every year, they say the Delta probably formed in less than 30,000 years. That is pretty old, but I have a question. If the earth is millions of years old, why isn’t the whole Gulf of Mexico full of mud by now? .....
Ok I will try once again maybe this time it will take....
if the rings of Saturn are not 4 billion years old how can earth be 4 billion years old? are you saying there was another little bang after the big bang?
You all claim the rings of the trees count the years how old it is. "dead or alive" where are the rings that show these old trees? All the trees on the planet decided to die at the same time so ST could have something to debate about? where is the 100.000 years old stump? and how come some trees are found inside layers of rock? I thought each layer of rock was a time line to show millions of years? If the tree survived long enough to allow millions of years of dirt to settle around it shouldn't the tree have a million rings?You mean facts like they have found dead trees that are around 60 million years old? Or the simple fact that antibiotic resistance occurs? Those types of facts?
this is not rocket science my friend.
These are the same rivers you all find your billion year old fossils so i wouldn't "lol" so fast, your going to a paint yourself into a corner. and then I will lol at you!lol at people who think rivers have always been where they are now.
It was a simple question, designed to simplify some of what the underlying premise of radiometric dating.
To which you have a ready made copy and pasted response that you probably didn't really read. Bravo.
All fairly reasonable points. All of these potential faults, however, are known and can be compensated for.Evolutionists do play with the figures at times too. When a radiometric “date” is out of line with their premise it is rejected and another found. For instance, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils. Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil bearing strata give dates of 23 Ma or 23 million years by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old’, according to their beliefs about the place of fossils in their evolutionary scheme. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get a more acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other samples gave much older dates but the authors decided they must have been contaminated and discarded them.
G. WoldeGabriel et al., ‘Ecological and Temporal Placement of Early Pliocene Hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia,’ Nature, 371:330-333, 1994
Radiometric Dating is not Evolution’s Friend
Radiometric dating is a very plausible and understandable premise. In fact many good dates can come from it if the data is interpreted correctly. But with some technical issues and the evolution world view pressure radiometric dating is part of the propaganda of the evolutionists that is not friendly to evolution.
What is Radiometric Dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.
- The original concentration of the parent isotope.
- The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
- The beta decay rate
For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.
There are other radiometric dating methods too. For example potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. All these methods are used in igneous rocks and are normally given as the time since solidification.
But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.
- The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
- The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
- The decay rate must be constant.
But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.
In statistics, when you have 99 results within a certain range and 1 result far outside of the others, you call this lone result an "outlier". This result tends to get ignored for the reason that it is likely not, for some unknown reason, indicative of the underlying data.
If I want to know what the average income of a given town is, I will go places and ask people how much money they make. Now, I walk into businesses and get 999 responses of fairly representative people and get an overall average of $49,000 per year, and then for my 1000th person, run into Bill Gates picking up his dry-cleaning, should I then conclude that, on average, everybody in the town makes $467,000 per year?
The method of overcoming the critiques in your copied-and-pasted critique is to simply take as many samples as possible, which has been done.
We have been dating rocks in this manner for decades and drawn so many samples that we can arrive at some pretty good conclusions.
We can also use the same types of dating to date meteorites which, according to modern understanding of how our solar system formed should have roughly the same age as the oldest rocks we can find.
Meteorites, by the way, have not been exposed to "water-soluable" isotopes, having been in the coldness of space for their entire existance.
Ok I will try once again maybe this time it will take....
if the rings of Saturn are not 4 billion years old how can earth be 4 billion years old? are you saying there was another little bang after the big bang?You know nothing about physics I see.
No we didn't.You all claim the rings of the trees count the years how old it is.
You're right. And yet you still don't get it."dead or alive" where are the rings that show these old trees? All the trees on the planet decided to die at the same time so ST could have something to debate about? where is the 100.000 years old stump? and how come some trees are found inside layers of rock? I thought each layer of rock was a time line to show millions of years? If the tree survived long enough to allow millions of years of dirt to settle around it shouldn't the tree have a million rings?
this is not rocket science my friend.
Wait, you think fossils are found in Rivers?These are the same rivers you all find your billion year old fossils so i wouldn't "lol" so fast,
You already have because you're just a troll. But in case people reading this actually believe your bull , I'd like to be here to disspell it.your going to a paint yourself into a corner. and then I will lol at you!
Yes, and back then I would've believed they were ok because I probably would've have been a scientist myself.99% of ST said Manu needed to be traded. Are you that shallow to just go with the flow?
Did you know your hero's the scientist told the public at one time asbestos is good for you, and cigarette's also?
You believe what you want just don't put lies in the text books and you will be ok my friend.
I'm ok with going with the majority of scientists on issues like this, because I don't have the training to perform experiements/analyze myself, and it doesn't affect my life in any real way.
I love how Atheist believe the earth is billions of years old and cite fossils found still alive to day as evidence.
Last edited by Alex Jones; 10-19-2009 at 09:22 AM.
So Shatafaian is the name on your drivers license? I hope so if not?
that make you a troll also.
these are facts all over the world and some are even found on the www (who knew the www was more than just porn?)But in case people reading this actually believe your bull ,
please your giving me way to much credit! But it's entertaining so do what you do best i guess.
Then you can start now... how is it this fossilized tree was found growing though layers of (billions of year old) stone?I'd like to be here to disspell it.
Please answer that it looks like ChumpDumper never wanted to. and I hope you do I have many other examples I am sure you can't wait to "disspell" them as you call it.
Then why create the topic?
Population Growth In 1985, the world population had 5 billion people in it. In 1800, there was only one billion. Just 200 years ago, only one billion people. Population is growing rapidly, nobody argues about that. Everybody agrees that about 1800 there was one billion people in the world. I have never seen anybody disagree with this. All the textbooks and population statistics indicate about 1800 there was one billion people in the world. What they do not do, though, is put it into perspective and say wait a minute, the earth cannot be billions of years old, there are not enough people here.
Because A) I think the evidence for evolution is much greater than the evidence that animals were just created in a certain way, and are static, and B) I knew it'd be an interesting thread.
You copy and pasting "info" from a young earth website and then moving on to another "topic" after it's been debunked is not debating.
Let's use this for an example:
you say:
I or someone else will easily answer your question like so:Oil Pressure .. The oil is under incredible pressure down there; it will come squirting up out of the ground like a big zit, because oil wells sometimes have 20,000 pounds per square inch. Put that in your back tires and watch what happens! 20,000 psi! The guys who study the rocks on top of the oil, say you know that rock cannot handle that pressure for more than probably 10 or 15,000 years. The rock should have cracked; the pressure should have leaked off. Okay, well than I have two obvious questions. Where did the oil come from and why is it still under pressure? If the pressure can only last 10,000 years, why is there still pressure down there? ...
and instead of a rebuttal, you will copy and paste something similar to this:The incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates that the oil and gas have been effectively trapped. The initial, slow ac ulation of oil and gas from the source area (primary migration) would hardly have had a chance to build up great pressure if the trapping rock were leaking like a sieve!
Oil and gas do a lot of migrating, and the oil ac ulated in a given reservoir may have recently migrated there from another reservoir. Thus, a given pool of oil may or may not have been there for millions and millions of years. A recent geological shift in the rocks might also increase the leakage of the primary oil pool, which had been hitherto sealed for millions of years. Thus, the mere existence of leaky trapping rocks does not prove that a pool of oil and gas was recently created.
The primary migration of oil from 1 to 5 kilometers deep in the earth, where it is produced under a combination of pressure and heat acting on organic matter, probably goes hand in hand with water migration. Certainly, oil and water are often found together, the oil floating on top of the water within permeable rock. The water is squeezed out as the source sediment experiences more and more pressure. Thus, it may interest you to know how fast water migrates down there.
"Some idea of the extremely slow speed of fluid motion to be expected can be gained by considering the movement of ground water at shallow depths in dense clays, classed as "impermeable." Under a moderate hydraulic gradient and a reasonable value of permeability for clay, we come up with flow speeds of ground water on the order of 2 to 3 million years per kilometer [3.2 to 4.8 million years per mile]. Yet the permeability of source shales of petroleum is rated at only one-thousandth as great as for clays tested in the surface environment" (Wszolek and Burlingame, 1978, p. 573).
Thus, the primary migration of oil from its place of origin will take far longer than the mere 6000 years or so creationists allow for the age of the earth. Creationists have tried to dance around that figure by quoting special cases of secondary migration or by simple smoke screen tactics, but the problem remains (Strahler, 1987, pp.237-238).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...good-yea2.html
..while mixing in a "you ignorant Evolutionist" crack along with it, and round and round you go.
Weeeeeee
where is the evidence?
what part is interesting? I have yet to see, wild Coba,ChumpDumper, Cry havoc, sasfasfan or Blake post anything worth reading, Blake and others are happy to just using this topic as some sort of poster pinata so they can maybe try out their witty 1995 style of smack they have been practicing to ready themselves for the up coming spurs season.I knew it'd be an interesting thread.
All I see is myself and mouse posting fats after facts and getting nothing worth debating on in return , your not here to learn anything you just want a topic with many pages, I won't sit here and be your dog and pony show i have a job, your topic is one sided and your friends are bias, and to be honest it's really a waste of my time............
The majority of scientists, evidence for that, etc etc. I'm not going to go through and list every specific bit of evidence, anymore so than you're going to give me useful evidence of some unspecific creator.
Hey, it's a free country. If you want to leave, by all means, do so. Maybe you're right, and the Young Earthers are the Galileo of this generation. I highly doubt it, though.
Mainly because the Creationist theory isn't really falsifiable, is it? Tell me, how would one disprove a theory based on creationism?
feel free to post some evidence when your done doing stand up. Your the main reason this topic went to , I hope your proud.
good day sir.
For the rest of you banana eating Darwin lovers when your not surfing for porn, read this, you may learn something.
http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
(Zosa they are all yours now do as you wish)
When did Alex Jones claim there is a creator.
mouse and Alex Jones are not creationist and they don't debate creationism they point out that doesn't make sense and why the text books in schools refuse to change. maybe you should re-read their postings.Hey, it's a free country. If you want to leave, by all means, do so.
Mainly because the Creationist theory isn't really falsifiable, is it? Tell me, how would one disprove a theory based on creationism?
mouse is the co-founder of AD (alternative design) he doesn't believe in the Bible so save your good material for Zolsa and the others!
And since your the creator of this topic? "please" Do us all a favor and have some of your Evolutionist buddy's spamming this topic with cheap insults to maybe answer the tree in the stone question and other Alex and Mouse posted. I am really waiting to find out how they respond to real questions, maybe you can save this topic.
Thank you.
Well, they obviously don't believe in evolution. Is there an alternate theory other than evolution or creationism they espouse?
It used to be called Intelligent design but the creationist used it to get Bible put in the text books and ed it up for the rest of us so mouse created AD.
To answer the most important question: When does microevolution "stop":
Microevolution isn't that. It's a misnomer. It's simply animals adapting to their environment - properly termed "adaptation." All adaptations allowable are precoded - mutations RARELY, if EVER, occur during microevolution AKA adaptation. If mutations don't even occur, how can many pile up?
And to address those mutations which do occur, even the most basic cell repairs its DNA - mutations are considered undesirable by the cell. Besides, do defects on preexisting code = more code? How does the fish gain the DNA needed to become an amphibian?
Last edited by z0sa; 10-19-2009 at 10:17 AM.
Dude your wasting your time .I have yet to see an Atheist in this topic actually talk like they give a about facts. I do think in this LnGrrrR fella may come around. he looks promising.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
