Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 4,499)

Showing posts 89,961 - 89,980 of111,597
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94982
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So you typed in a search term and got some hits. What does that mean in regard to your claims? I don't believe you knew what I was expecting when I posted about dinosaurs and the Bible, but if it makes you feel better run with that. I wasn't playing a game, I was looking to see if I got an expected response and you were willing to provide it.

What liberal views are those? Would they be the biblical scholars concluding that the animals described in those passages you posted are probably a hippo and a whale. So liberal is just what you use to refer to opposing view. Nicely mischaracterized. Fits with all your others.

You make a lot of outrageous points that aren't true or are backed with questionable evidence.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94983
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
You might be better served spending your time going over Chimney 1's or SZ's posts. They have done more damage to your position than anything I have posted.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94984
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, your fictional characterisation that there is anything in the actual fossil record giving anyone cold sweats. Its kinds precious, this phony view you have.
<quoted text>
Says you, and its very arbitrary. Any sorting due to a flood might produce a preponderance at each level. But we would of course, expect the odd mammal, bird, or dino fossil even here. They don't exist. Of course not! They had not evolved.
<quoted text>
Except, of course that even in trilobites there is a clear succession from early primitive types to the most advanced types more that 100 m years later. And as a whole in the fossil record, the "greater mobility" model fails humorously. Even your "reptiles sink" (unverified) claim does not rescue it.
<quoted text>
I don't even blame you for getting it so wrong. That would be your gullible reliance on extremely unreliable sources. I am sure that once you look into it with your honest eyes open, you will see how deluded you have been by the superficially plausible claptrap fundamentalist apologists have been spouting.
<quoted text>
And how do you propose that, considering that the soft shells versions won't fossilise well? Or even your assumption that a shell had to evolve extremely slowly? Or the usual "hundreds of intermediates" creationist strawman?(Yawn, yet another) Again, when the machinery for creating a shell emerged, why should it take long enough to creates "hundreds of intermediates" in the fossil record before a full shell was used?
<quoted text>
No, I don't think. I think that once the basis of an eye developed, natural selection would quickly favour variants whose structure corrected for underwater aberration. Just as when later eyes hit the atmosphere, they would soon optimise to atmospheric aberration too.
<quoted text>
Your proposed start being the Cambrian, a period of 70 million years. Talk about e x p l o s i o n.... And trilobites changing significantly over that period and in later ones.
<quoted text>
I will go with the peer reviewed research over your personal intuition any day.
Well Chimney1,

Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye

Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]

Emphasis "could"

The article continues;

"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".

"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.

It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.

To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.

The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94985
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Chimney1,
Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]
Emphasis "could"
The article continues;
"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".
"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.
It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.
The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
Once again all you are doing is looking for areas that are little understood as yet by science and speculating. Well since you science guys don't know what is going on we consider that it was miracle. It coulda happened that way. No we don't have any legitimate evidence.

Appearing abruptly in the fossil record does not imply that it miraculously came into existence fully formed. You can click those ruby slippers together all you want Dorothy, but that will never make it true. It just means ancestoral forms have not yet been found, but evolution predicts that if they are out there they will be found.

It is only real in the sense that you are reaching real far and trying to bridge a gap in our understanding with mental deficient games.

Trilobites existed for over 250 million years. During that time there was continued evolution of their eyes. There are at least three different types of eye in trilobites that I am aware of that are used today in part to determine phylogeny and separate the higher taxa within the class. So, no the two statements do not contradict each other and your little sales pitch falls apart.

Are you saying that soft-bodied fossils have been found in strata that shouldn't be there. If the fossils and the strata containing them are there that seems to belie your whole point. In any regard, soft-bodied trilobites from Pre-Cambrian strata are being found that indicate that indeed did not spring fully formed into the Cambrian, but like all organisms, have followed evolution in their development.

By the way, evolution has nothing to do with whether, how and if an organism becomes fossilized.

Do you eat a lot of sugar?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94986
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F1...

The soft tissue is fossil from Phosphatisation.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94987
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SBT, the evolution of the eye is well understood since there are creatures that still have different amounts of sight today. It is easily explainable and has been explained many times. In fact it is one of Dawkins specialties:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94988
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing. You cannot, of course.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.

Very telling slip up though.

You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.

You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.

In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.

YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94989
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Chimney1,
Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]
Emphasis "could"
The article continues;
"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".
"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.
It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.
The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite
OK, the earliest known trilobites had eyes. Great. It logically means that eyes had already evolved by then. Do we know exactly how and in which creatures? Obviously not. Does that mean they could not have evolved? Equally obviously not.

It would suggest that eyes evolved in soft bodied creatures that became trilobites later. Its also a reasonable supposition that fossil evidence from half a billion years ago will be rare. So far we have only a very few sites like the Burgess Shale, that merely provide snapshots.

You then add a new twist, the idea that fossils should continue to decompose over millions of years after forming. Never heard that one before, and see absolutely no basis for it if you have covered, undisturbed rock. The amount available will diminish over geological timescales, as more rock gets raised, subjected to erosion, etc. But lucky for us, some has survived.

More recently...say 230 million years ago, we now have a very full fossil record of the extraordinary series of transitions that led to the 3-boned middle ear in mammals. What that tells us quite simply is that the kinds of transitions you guys claim are impossible can be seen in this case clearly. Meaning, in principle, there is no issue with the evolution of the trilobite eye or any other example you want to trot out.

So accepting that large scale evolution is possible is not a faith based position, and little Johnny should keep asking questions. If the hunger for knowledge is what got Johnny's ancestors kicked out of the Garden of Eden, so be it. Good for us.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94990
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.
You then followed up with the claim that scientists were having "cold sweats" over empirical evidence when in fact they are perfectly comfortable with the empirical evidence. Asked to provide verified evidence of a single fossil appearing before its possible antecedents (a true falsification of evolution), you have provided nothing.
Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot, and the continued lies even after their errors (was it Snelling? trying to remember the lying prick's name) were pointed out. But I bet its another one you bought into uncritically.
YEC is an utter crock. Its claims never stack up. End of story.
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94992
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So we began a couple of days back with your claims of scientists "admitting" things that are in fact quite openly discussed and not even controversial in modern science.

Strike three, you claim erroneously that evolution is a "liberal viewpoint". Its funny how you guys label evolution liberal when you are not claiming its fascist. You can't have it both ways.
Very telling slip up though.
You have claimed that radiometric dating is so bad that it's embarrassing to geologists. To back that up all you could offer are discredited RATE findings, while ignoring the vast majority of measurements which show concordance to within 10% using multiple methods.
You have claimed that "the" great unconformity shows the original Earth "that Adam stood on" while ignoring the fact the even the original so called Great ones were in two different places and geological periods, and many others have been since found. And that they are easily explained by periodic rises and falls in elevation leading to cycles of erosion and deposition.
In short, you give it your best shot but merely show how superficial the arguments you buy into really are. The progenitors of those arguments are charlatans. I followed one right through to the end, the silly controversy over magnetic reversals, through the thoroughly disingenuous twisting of the work of Coe and Prevot,
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks

I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.

I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.

Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.

This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.

Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.

Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.

My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.

Level 1

Since: Apr 07

TERRA AUSTRALIS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94993
Jul 6, 2013
 
Creation VIA Evolution works for me.

If we dare to think "interdimensionally" ,

time

is

irrelevant!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94994
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body.
Either you are being deliberately dense or you honestly think that someone has found an INTACT trilobite.

That has never happened.

What _MAY_ have happened is a _FOSSIL_ find which such clarity that it allows people to see the IMPRESSION left by soft body parts. That does happen, rarely. It doesn't require some fluke of physics. It just requires extremely fine grained material in which the creature is fossilized.

Having not read all your posts, I'm going to make the assumption that you are trying to argue that evolution is false.

Here's the problem with your argument:

- The dating methods which confirm evolution are based in _OTHER_ sciences which are INDEPENDENT of evolution.

In other words, for evolution to be wrong the fossil record has to be wrong. For the fossil record to be wrong, the DATING methods which confirm the fossil record must be wrong.

However, since the fossil record is confirmed by the following sciences:
- Geology, Nuclear Physics, Chemistry, Volcanology, etc.

Then EACH of these sciences must LIKEWISE be wrong, not just partially but IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

And since other dates provided by these sciences have been confirmed by:

- BOTANY, METEROLOGY, ASTRONOMY, LINGUISTICS, HYDROLOGY...

Then these sciences must LIKEWISE be false _IN THEIR ENTIRETY_

So, basically this whole argument comes down to this:

Either a story made up by goat herders 4000+ years ago is ABSOLUTELY !00% TRUE and therefore ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong.(meaning nothing you own actually exists, etc).

- OR -

The goat herders 4000+ years ago were writing ALLEGORICALLY and their story is supposed to convey MEANING not FACTS, And the rest of science is right (meaning everything you own actually exists.)

Which of these seems more likely to you?

Which of these would seem more likely to a rational person?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94995
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Edited to allow for space.
So faulting, upthrust and overthrust can't occur and result in newer rocks being under older rocks? I don't think so. The basics of this have been understood for a long time. You must have missed that during your cherry picking.

The Lake Missoula floods show evidence of the erosion of steel?

Still persisting that the Grand Canyon is flood formed even though you haven't answered one question put to you so far. Where is the evidence of these alleged lakes that the bionic, young earth, geologist proposes supplied the water? Evidence for a lake that could have supplied the water shows it was too shallow to hold the volume necessary and any water from it would not have gotten past the Kaibab uplift. Again, why only the one canyon? Again, if flood-formed, why is the canyon not straighter. Again, wind formed strata in between marine-formed strata sort of eliminates the possibility of a flood formation right off. How about all the side canyons that enter the Grand Canyon at river level rather than a hanging valleys you see in the Scablands from the Missoula Lake flooding? What about the fact that Grand Canyon does not appear as a flood drainage basin? Finally, there are numerous structures within the Grand Canyon that show no evidence of water erosion from a catastrophic event. They are not oriented in the direction of flow or water-polished and scrubbed as would be expected if a single flood had formed them. The fact that they are present at all after having been hit by a massive volume of water with a huge abrasive load leaves one in doubt of this model.

This is just another example where science doesn't know the complete story of how it formed so it opens it up for all sorts of fictional accounts.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94996
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Usually when the first line is bullshit it's all bullshit,
and with this it's pretty easy to see what has happened , and it is a textbook example of how the plates shift, bend, break, and get tossed is spots ...completely upside down. You can believe what you want but no matter how much you wish it was true, it simply isn't true. There never was a global flood.
I suggest you read this to get an idea how the forces that create mountains, is the force that jumbles up and tosses parts of the crust upside down.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1603/report.pdf

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94997
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Learn some basic geology, which is, ironically, what explained all this long before we even postulated the fact that species evolve.
humble brother

Vanda, Finland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94998
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.

What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".

On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94999
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SBT, there are two ways to get older beds over younger beds. They both involve wide scale compression. Something that is not all that uncommon in orogeny, or mountain building. The case you referred to is that of a thrust fault where an older bed is pushed up and over a younger bed. The boundary where the two layers slid over each other is usually fairly obvious to even neophytes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_fault

Another way that layers can be locally reversed is with a recumbent fold.

http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2012/02/...

These are again fairly obvious since very often when rocks are deposited there are signs that show which way is up. Also the total reverse order of strata is a bit of a hint.

I do believe that the mountains that you referred to was due to a major thrust fault. It is not a problem for geology at all.
One way or another

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95000
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.

How does this become an issue of being anti American ?

People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.

You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.

You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do

You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women

You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.

As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.

Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.

One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.

American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.

That's just the American way!
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95001
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

humble brother wrote:
Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.
What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".
On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?
Do you think the universe had a Creator who wanted it to be here?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95002
Jul 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

One way or another wrote:
Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.
How does this become an issue of being anti American ?
People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.
You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.
You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do
You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women
You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.
As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.
Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.
One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.
American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.
That's just the American way!
Since I'm an American, and you do not speak for me. Indeed you weren't asked to speak for anyone. WTF makes you think you can, or even have any right to do so?

Absolutely you speak for JIM and JIM alone, and America is not JIM alone. So quit proselytizing like all America is marching to Jim's agenda.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 89,961 - 89,980 of111,597
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••