Im still considering the Galactic Battlecruiser part. DAmn Aliens, all they want is tree fiddy
What on earth (so to speak) is tree fiddy? Can I have some too? Is it good to eat?
ATs what dem aliens ask for, tree fiddy! an I aint given em no tree fiddy, ats for sure.
farmerman wrote:he he he ha ha ha haaa. Have you ever been into the Canyon? the eroded banks keep sloughing into the river (its usually quite muddy), but there are plenty of "rounded rocks" ?
I've been there, there were no rounded or smooth rocks, and you're totally full of **** as usual.
Damn right. That's cause the flood water smoothed some of 'em out after the earthquake, but only the ones Farmerman saw.
as usual youre a bigass liar there gunga. The rounded rocks at the Canyon bottom just have to be looked for. I suppose you were being told by some preacher dude. What part of the canyon bottom were you standing? and what time of year?
What a moron. The very bottom (Vishnu schist) is an entirely water worn basement complex.
If youre gonna play "geologist"please try to learn something
GUNGAsNAKE--You actually made me look for the old National Geographics that contain pix of the CAnyon. So the rest of the good people dont accept your contribution as fact, I wish to refer to the July 1978 Nat GEo. In that article are seen massive sand bars that were referred to in the expeditions by John Wesley Powell and later by E L Kolb. Kolb talks about the smooth water worn appearances of boulder fields and the sands in the point bars. (They actually found some gold that had been washed from the granites and the Schists..
In the 1978 Nat Geo article are mostly pictures of the canyon. I refer you to the sand bar pictures on p 31, the "rounded cobbleriffles on p38,(along with the water polished limestone of Deer Creek. Also a good picture is shown of the limestone and sandstone of Deer Creek itself, showing how the canyon wall itself is water rounded.
As the canyon scours and undermines the weaker shale layers, the overlying rock tumbles into talus heaps as is seen in many scablands. Then the water takes over and , as I said before, rounds the cobbles quite nicely and pulverizes the smaller ones into rounded "beach sands"
When you make sweeping generalizations, please try to understand what the hell your talking about. I can keep posting about canyon rocks till cows wander into your living room, but your point was that
The absence of rounded rocks supports a theory of some kind of "integalactic arc". And you call me full of BS.
I dont profess to know everything about geology. I do know way more than you thats obvious, and, further, at least Im not delusional to come out and support some obviously crackpot theory when a very reasonable theory, supported by evidence, already exists.
gungas own website uses an abductive reasoning based upon the existence of the Valles Marieris on MArs. Now Gungs wishes to turn abduction on its head. Remember Gunga, the MArs Rover is finding evidence of ancient water on the planet, so the Marineris is partly due to water. However most planetary geos agree that uplift and some degree of continental margin movement ws involved. Not, as you seem to prefer(reason unknown) a giant lightning strike.
Lightning or plasma strikes (sometimes common in volcanic areas) always leave footprints called fulgurites. No evidence of any arc borne melting can be seen in or around the Grand CAnyon. If someone would have found large obsidian fields or trydimite deposits, maybe there could be some evidence for a minor lightning hit. However, none seen anywhere. (There are some fulgurite deposits on the KAibab, but they are fairly small maybe 100 ft or less) certainly they arent large enought to be the nucleus of a chasm like the Canyon.
Im curious, why , do you, an apparently educated person(gunga) always gravitate to the most outrageous improbable theories. (Like your "dinosaur" petroglyphs )
Re: How can you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years
kickycan wrote:real life wrote:kickycan wrote:real life wrote:kickycan wrote:This is for the so-called "young earth" creationists. I suspect that Real Life subscribes to this idea, but if there are any others on this board, I would like to ask you too. So here it is. I'd like to know how, with all the fossils, geologic data, and scientific evidence out there, you can possibly believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
Thanks.
Why would you 'suspect' such a thing, when I've stately clearly that I do consider the earth to be young?
I'm sorry, but I don't read everyone of your posts. I thought I'd seen you say that somewhere, but when I wrote this thread I wasn't sure. Plus, you frequently say things in an ambiguous way. So I only suspected.
Less than four hours before you began this thread, you had responded to an exchange between ros and I where I discussed this very thing.
Yes, but you didn't actually say that you believed the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, you just said you believed the earth to be young.
Alright, perhaps I overreacted. My apologies.
kickycan wrote:So I, in an effort not to embarrass you by assuming that you did believe such a ludicrous idiotic idea, gave you the benefit of the doubt.
But now I see that you actually DO believe this idiocy.
So please carry on. In all honesty, your beliefs are fascinating.
In an effort not to overreact again, let me just ask you:
If an idea goes against the accepted (even informed) view of the majority, is it by necessity ludicrous or idiotic?
Isn't the history of science filled with instances where the majority view was incorrect?
yes and those were the ideas where the majority had views that correlated nicely with religion. (Think Copernicus or GAlileo)
farmerman wrote:Do you know how long it takes limestone to form.....?
Since limestone formations contain numerous fossils, the limestone must likely be laid down in large amounts in a fairly short time, or the critters we now see as fossils would've long since decayed or been scavenged.
Would you agree?
Fossils typically would be rare or non-existent if the strata was laid down fractions of an inch at a time, over long ages, right?
real life wrote:farmerman wrote:Do you know how long it takes limestone to form.....?
Since limestone formations contain numerous fossils, the limestone must likely be laid down in large amounts in a fairly short time, or the critters we now see as fossils would've long since decayed or been scavenged.
Would you agree?
Fossils typically would be rare or non-existent if the strata was laid down fractions of an inch at a time, over long ages, right?
Real
You Creationist believe in The Flood Myth. You site as evidence limestone embedded with fossils on mountains.
The Flood lasted one year.
If your Creationist "scientist" want to prove the Flood or the short lifespan of the earth why don't they produce hundreds of feet of limestone in the short period of one year?
Perhaps I can supply you with an answer.
They can't. It takes millions of years to produce limestone embedded with fossils. That is in direct conflict with your religious fairy tale.
Reality does not support the Bible. The Bible is wrong.
hi xingu,
Where did I say that all limestone was formed during 'The Flood' ?
My question RL was how long does limestone take to form, not "how long does it take to embed living organisms in the limey mud"
You dont get it (or you do and youre being purposefully obtuse)
My line of questions re: the Appalachian forelands is based upon evidence that individual layers of sediments (lets say limey muds that later become limestones) have slightly different fossils as you go "Up-section" or as time moves on. SInce limestone isnt cement, it takes a certain amount of tim for it to harden then be deforemd and later be eroded(all separate geological events) You dont seem to want to bothered with this inconvenient truth.
Thats ok, I think everybody knows quite well where youre coming from, I only wish you wouldnt make a cartoon out of science, its a bit annoying when you proudly parade your studied ignorance for all to view.
farmerman wrote:real life wrote:farmerman wrote:Do you know how long it takes limestone to form.....?
Since limestone formations contain numerous fossils, the limestone must likely be laid down in large amounts in a fairly short time, or the critters we now see as fossils would've long since decayed or been scavenged.
Would you agree?
Fossils typically would be rare or non-existent if the strata was laid down fractions of an inch at a time, over long ages, right?
My question RL was how long does limestone take to form, not "how long does it take to embed living organisms in the limey mud"
You dont get it (or you do and youre being purposefully obtuse)
Actually , your question was:
farmerman wrote:Do you know how long it takes limestone to form, harden, deform, erode, get overdeposited by new sediments that also must harden then everything gets deformed again and again, then eroded and over deposited again at least 4 times?
But perhaps now you don't really want to talk about how it forms, just about hardening?
I think the formation is a very important question because, typically, long ages are ascribed to this part of the process.
limestones, like sedimentary rocks that they are, can accumulate in "depositional environments" There are some limestones that are 3000 ft thick with distinct laminae or layers. So , if you wish me to include the process of depositional lamination into my "timeline" ok, Ill bite. How does that shorten the overall time for which a limestone bed (among all the others I mentioned ) is formed, etc.
If you cant appreciate the humongous amounts of time that the Appalachian foredeeps and strata represent, what does your evidence have to counter this interpretation?
Quote:But perhaps now you don't really want to talk about how it forms, just about hardening?
Is that some backhanded means to make it sound like Im avoiding your point? as the resident annelid of this thread, you are the master of
non-answering
studied obtuseness
quote mining and discretization of others points
unzcientific methodology
arguing from a point of no evidence
I suppose that this will evoke a 5 word smartass response or some silly pointless question that parades as substantive.
OK Ill wait.
Well, I'm trying to get an idea WHICH part of the process you seem to think takes llllllllllllllooooooooooonnnnnnnnggggggggg ages.
Is it the formation?
Hardening?
Erosion?
Exactly what?
read the question again, what do you fel I was saying? Do you have any counterevidence?
