Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

Yes, and which positions are those? I listed what was contradictory.

You only claim it is without saying why it is. But that is your usual MO. Make a vague statement so you can back away from it when challenged.

parados,

I really tire of referring you back to the posts to see what was said.

Maporsche objected to the article which referred to mankind's presence on earth for millions of years.

I posted several articles referring to early man making tools and implements in excess of a million years ago. These are articles which espouse the same viewpoint that maporsche professes (i.e. long ages of time, evolution, etc)

Do you not see the inconsistency?

Really , parados, you are beginning to be a bore.

If you cannot keep up, or keep from pretending that your out of context objections have relevance, I'm not sure what use you expect your contributions to be.

0 Replies

You mean this post?

But RL, he was correct. Mankind hasn't been around for millions of years. Homo sapiens only appeared about 130,000 years ago.

0 Replies

Keep up real life?

I am well ahead of you. More "evolved" if you wish to use that term.

Your little claim that "mankind" includes homo erectus is unsupported and your typical garbage.

See my hypothesis on your abilty to support your statements on the other thread. I am thinking before the year is out my hypothesis will have moved beyond theory and be pretty well established as law. We may even begin to predict 1, 2, or 3 for a given response to a particular post. Of course we won't be able to tell you our prediction before you respond or we will be changing the results.

0 Replies

Let me put this another way, RL.

Humans are Homo sapiens. Homo erectus are not humans.

Likewise...

Wolves are Canis lupus. Canis mesomelas are not wolves.

0 Replies

from http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9040896/Homo-erectus

Quote:

Homo erectus -- extinct species of the human genus (Homo)

from http://archaeology.about.com/od/homoerectus/a/pakefield.htm

Quote:

One interesting question that has arisen since I wrote this article is what species of early human being actually made these artifacts. The Nature article merely says 'early man', referring, I suppose, to either Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergensis.

from http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Homo-Erectus-Comparative-Anatomical/dp/0521449987

Quote:

The Evolution of Homo Erectus: Comparative Anatomical Studies of an Extinct Human Species [/u]

Following the discoveries of several Neanderthals in Europe, traces of a more archaic kind of human were uncovered in Asia, toward the close of the last century.....

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

I explained this (again) at the top of this page.

Do you read any posts, other than your own? Razz

0 Replies

parados wrote:

I am well ahead of you. More "evolved" if you wish to use that term......

....We may even begin to predict ......

....Of course we won't be able to tell you our prediction before you respond or we will be changing the results.

Oh , I see.

You are 'more evolved' than I, eh?

Is that why you've begun to use the Royal 'We' ? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

The soil in my garden is particlularly saturated today, but I believe its more due to the 2" rainfall we had last night that from Noahs Flood.

Where do you get this ****?

0 Replies

Quote:

There exist hge salt deposits f Paleozoic age that cover an area from western Ny state Pa,parts of W Va,Ohio and Michigan. This is an evaporite bed from a SIlurian sea where the salt just caked up as the seas dried. Same thing with the Williston Basin in Montana or the Permian basin that goes from Kanas to Texas. The oceans can hold so much salt, then it begins to precipitate as a function of its solubility limits. The dead sea, for example, has a huge salt mining industry in its south regions.
With the exception of the Great Salt Lake, The Gulf of Karabougas, The Dead Sea, and Salton Sea.none of these deposits Ive listed first are less than 60 million years old.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

There exist hge salt deposits f Paleozoic age that cover an area from western Ny state Pa,parts of W Va,Ohio and Michigan. This is an evaporite bed from a SIlurian sea where the salt just caked up as the seas dried. Same thing with the Williston Basin in Montana or the Permian basin that goes from Kanas to Texas. The oceans can hold so much salt, then it begins to precipitate as a function of its solubility limits. The dead sea, for example, has a huge salt mining industry in its south regions.
With the exception of the Great Salt Lake, The Gulf of Karabougas, The Dead Sea, and Salton Sea.none of these deposits Ive listed first are less than 60 million years old.

And those comments about salt deposits on (present) land have exactly what to do with the piece you purportedly addressed? Laughing

The article isn't referring to seas that used to be.

It's talking about the oceans that are now.

If the present oceans are as old as you propose, why are the concentrations of minerals so low?

0 Replies

Quote:

43 - RIVER DELTAS

Im not even gonna paste your drivvle about the Miss delta since , unless your head was in a melon for the last 3 years, you could have seen that deltas are very dynamic situations, subject to onshore forces, river deposition, weather, etc. Katrina wiped out an area a bigger than Delaware in 3 nights and yet you wish to use this as a calculation for a young earth.
The Miss Delta is about 60 mY old, lies atop a prograde predelta sequence of continental slope sediments very similar to the Baltimore canyon -continental shelf along the mid Atlantic states.
The delta is NOT 40 ft thick, as a complex , its way ove 350 meters thick and then it intersects with earlier paleozoic prodelta features.

The delta is made up of 4 distinct regional overlapping sequences(the Plaquimines modern,the LaFourche,St Bernard,Teche,and Maringouin) each with a distinct "lobe" all the way N of Baton Rouge to hundreds of miles S of New Orleans. The Plaquimine, that which surounds and protects New Orleans with its "cheniers of sand" , was literally wiped away by Katrina leaving New Orleans a target unless the Army Corps decides in its wisdom to stop restricting sediment flow which builds the deltas.

0 Replies

Quote:

GROWTH OF CORAL

Corals have depth ranges and LATITUDINAL ranges, so to estimate coral growth as a "young earth" indicator, I suspect a bit of Creationist arm waving.

We know where coral reefs from the Silurian through the TErtiary exist, and because these corals have such nice enviromental limitations, we use them as depth , or latitudinal indicators (remember all the plates were moving about)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

I explained this (again) at the top of this page.

Do you read any posts, other than your own?

Laugh all you want Real Lie, but I fail to see how my statements are inconsistent with my position. Plesae explain THAT to me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
I am well ahead of you. More "evolved" if you wish to use that term......

....We may even begin to predict ......

....Of course we won't be able to tell you our prediction before you respond or we will be changing the results.

Oh , I see.

You are 'more evolved' than I, eh?

Is that why you've begun to use the Royal 'We' ?

Science escapes you doesn't it. In order for an hypothesis to become a theory or a law it must be widely accepted. More than one person tests it and makes predictions based on it. It would be the scientific "we."

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Laugh all you want Real Lie, but I fail to see how my statements are inconsistent with my position. Plesae explain THAT to me.

It looks like another scientific test of our scientific experiment.

Quote:

Present "hypothesis" - real life will not support his claim

suggested alternatives will be 1. change the subject. or 2. not respond to me at all. 3. make some claim that upon further questioning will result in 1 or 2.

0 Replies

RL, my point was perhaps hoping for a starting point that wasa bit higher up the understanding ladder than your post admits. There is no such thing as a uniform concentration of sea water. We use a reference of about 35 ppt for North Sea at a specific temperature to stand as "average sea water" The reason for this is mostly for shipping, not some arcane area of paleogeography. (Ships ride at different depths at different temps and salinities so their Plimsoll mark can be used to calculate their bouyancy and loading weights for different oceans and basins.
Sea water is in a nice equilibrium based upon its concentration of specific salt. Sodium Chloride and Potassium chloride have solubilities that can occur up to about 90% salinity before they precipitate. Oher salts precipitate earlier. All around the earth, salts are being , either taken up into solution , or are precipitating. So your post about "where are the high salinities that coorespond to an ancient earth" is not only invalid, its a dim premise upon which to build a "theory". It refuses to align all the sciences that are in play when we talk about "seawater" concentration .

I know you just copied this from some wags blog (I suppose) but you should really be more critical of that which you accept as foundational evidence.

Besides, my original post refutes your postulate that ,by using some chronological salinity rate we can account for seas reaching equilibrium concentration in 13000 years. My evidence had shown the existence of sea salt deposits, hundreds of millions of years older than your " earth salinity date" I know its inconvenient to try to synthesize all data so its in agreement, but please try to not be so one dimensional when you post.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

I explained this (again) at the top of this page.

Do you read any posts, other than your own?

...I fail to see how my statements are inconsistent with my position. Plesae explain THAT to me.

*sigh*

you and parados are either quite inattentive or simply attempting to derail any constructive discussion. Parados , in particular, seems to want to imply that if I don't reply and re-reply to his nonsense that his has demostrated some sort of hypothesis. Yes, I suppose if one acts foolish enough that folks will begin to ignore you.

Maporsche, as I said earlier:

You objected to the article which referred to mankind's presence on earth for millions of years.

I posted several articles referring to early man making tools and implements in excess of a million years ago. These are articles which espouse the same viewpoint that you profess (i.e. long ages of time, evolution, etc)

Do you not see the inconsistency?

Apparently not, or you chose not to see it. You instead tried to narrow the discussion to 'homo sapiens' , which ignored the context of the article.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It looks like another scientific test of our scientific experiment.

Perhaps you could impress folks even more if you would say:

'It scientifically looks like another scientific test of the scientific experiment that we scientists have scientifically proposed to advance science.'

Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
parados wrote:
It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

What are you talking about here?

I explained this (again) at the top of this page.

Do you read any posts, other than your own?

...I fail to see how my statements are inconsistent with my position. Plesae explain THAT to me.

*sigh*

you and parados are either quite inattentive or simply attempting to derail any constructive discussion. Parados , in particular, seems to want to imply that if I don't reply and re-reply to his nonsense that his has demostrated some sort of hypothesis. Yes, I suppose if one acts foolish enough that folks will begin to ignore you.

Maporsche, as I said earlier:

You objected to the article which referred to mankind's presence on earth for millions of years.

I posted several articles referring to early man making tools and implements in excess of a million years ago. These are articles which espouse the same viewpoint that you profess (i.e. long ages of time, evolution, etc)

Do you not see the inconsistency?

Apparently not, or you chose not to see it. You instead tried to narrow the discussion to 'homo sapiens' , which ignored the context of the article.

NO I don't see inconsistency. I'm not denying that Home Erectus existed 1.7 million years ago. I'm not denying that he made tools. I didn't know you were referring to the common term 'mankind' as anything other than the current stage of human evolution, Home Sapiens. I even conceded that point in a subsequent post of mine, and answered the question raised by your cut and paste job using your version of what 'mankind' stands for. How is that narrowing down the argument, I replied using your definition, once I understood what your definition was.

To try and label my posts as 'inconsistent' is disingenuous and downright FALSE. You are LYING once again and I hope you burn in hell for it.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know