1n 1976, at a diatomaceous-earth quarry in Lompoc, California, workers
of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp uncovered the fossil skeleton of
a baleen whale standing on end in the quarry as it was being exposed
gradually as the diatomite is mined. The whale was estimated to be
about 80 feet long. This means that the formation was not built up
gradually over millions of years, because for a creature to become a
fossil it must be buried deeply and quickly in wet sediment to seal it off
from the atmosphere, bacteria, and so forth. Evidence for the Genesis
Flood and a young earth?
Originally posted by RJHindshttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html
1n 1976, at a diatomaceous-earth quarry in Lompoc, California, workers
of the Dicalite Division of Grefco Corp uncovered the fossil skeleton of
a baleen whale standing on end in the quarry as it was being exposed
gradually as the diatomite is mined. The whale was estimated to be
about 80 feet long. This means that the formation was not built up
gradua ...[text shortened]... from the atmosphere, bacteria, and so forth. Evidence for the Genesis
Flood and a young earth?
Originally posted by RJHindsSaid by whom? Do you realize that if what you say is true, Adam could not have existed as the fundamental laws of physics would be so different that atoms would not exist. You should know this since in the past you have claimed that the universe is 'fine tuned' for life. You are being dishonest.
The corroborations of Setterfield's work is said to be piling up.
What you also don't realize is that the dating methods are checked against each other and if the fundamental laws changed, it would affect them differently. So the dating methods themselves can be used to confirm whether or not such things as rates of radioactive decay have changed in the past.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe methods assume things. To assume makes an "ass" out of "u" amd "me".
Said by whom? Do you realize that if what you say is true, Adam could not have existed as the fundamental laws of physics would be so different that atoms would not exist. You should know this since in the past you have claimed that the universe is 'fine tuned' for life. You are being dishonest.
What you also don't realize is that the dating methods ar ...[text shortened]... to confirm whether or not such things as rates of radioactive decay have changed in the past.
Originally posted by RJHindsOur discussion has come to a natural end. I see nothing to be gained from discussing scientific points with somebody who uncritically accepts anything which agrees with his outlandish minority viewpoint while happily dismissing well-researched, peer-reviewed science. You continue to champion the views of Harold Slusher, despite being shown that his qualifications are very questionable, and are naive enough to believe that "radioactive-dating methods is directly related to the speed of light" (sic). In short, Mr Hinds, I'm afraid I stand with RWingett on this one - I think you may actually be an idiot.
You appear to be indoctrinated well by all the non-science writings
and theories out there. Nothing is a fact in science until it passes
the scientific methods. The main point of the scientific methods is
that to be proven a scientific fact it must be observed to occur and
must be repeatable. You are believing in conjecture as if it were fact.
I am ...[text shortened]... without question is turning out to be wrong. I
am sure there will be many more in the future.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThere is much more evidence. For example Robert Gentry a specialist in
Our discussion has come to a natural end. I see nothing to be gained from discussing scientific points with somebody who uncritically accepts anything which agrees with his outlandish minority viewpoint while happily dismissing well-researched, peer-reviewed science. You continue to champion the views of Harold Slusher, despite being shown that his q ...[text shortened]... r Hinds, I'm afraid I stand with RWingett on this one - I think you may actually be an idiot.
using uranium's radiohalo clocks has determined that the uranium/lead
ratios in the Colorado Plateau coal formation indicate that this formation
is only a few thousand years old.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf you look close at all the evidence, you will see the information
Our discussion has come to a natural end. I see nothing to be gained from discussing scientific points with somebody who uncritically accepts anything which agrees with his outlandish minority viewpoint while happily dismissing well-researched, peer-reviewed science. You continue to champion the views of Harold Slusher, despite being shown that his q ...[text shortened]... r Hinds, I'm afraid I stand with RWingett on this one - I think you may actually be an idiot.
I have put out is just as much science as that which you be lieve
is science. So apparently by your method of determininig what is
science, I have a choice of what I want to believe just as you do.
So you can go on an believe your crappy science and I'll believe
mine. Maybe one day we will go back to just doing real science.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat is science according to you? You dismiss as nonsense most of the major fields recognized by the rest of us. You claim your 'evidence' is science even though you already admitted that some of it was flawed and non of it has followed the traditional review process. So what is 'science' in your eyes?
If you look close at all the evidence, you will see the information
I have put out is just as much science as that which you be lieve
is science.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have already explained what science is and evolution ain't it.
What is science according to you? You dismiss as nonsense most of the major fields recognized by the rest of us. You claim your 'evidence' is science even though you already admitted that some of it was flawed and non of it has followed the traditional review process. So what is 'science' in your eyes?
Biochemist, Dr. Duane T. Gish said, "Not a single, indisputable,
multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rocks!
Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the
evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever
existed, have never been found."
"Evolution: The Fossils Say No!" by Duane T. Gish, 1976, page 122.
Many fossils of plants and animals have been found in what is believed
to be the oldest of rocks and these fossils appear essentially the same
compared to their living counterpart. Centuries of breeding experiments
have been attopted to cross the boundaries between kinds and the
result has never produced more tha a sterile animal.
Examples are:
Horse and donkey producing a sterile mule.
Horse and zebra producing a sterile Zebronkey.
Lion and tiger producing a sterile Liger.
The fact that these hybrids are sterile and do not reproduce is strong
evidence against evolution.
"But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him, and to every seed
his own body. Allflesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind
of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, and another
of birds." (1 Corinthians 15:38-39)
Dr. Gish defines the Biblical term "kind" as:
"A generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant
genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with
other groups of organisms under normal circumstances."
This definition may not be complete but it is a definition given by
a biochemical scientist and should statisfy my lack of being able
to give a definition that many have complained about.
Charles Darwin has also stated, "Not one change of species into
another is on recored." He also stated, "We cannot prove that a
single species has been changed." In speaking about evolution.
Charles Darwin also said, "As by this theory, innumerable transitional
forms must have existed. Why do we not find them imbedded in the
crust of the earth? Why is all nature not in confusiion instead of
being as we see them, well-defined species?"
"The Origin of Species", Vol. 2, 6th Edition, page 49.
Originally posted by RJHindsCan you state here whether or not 'horse' and 'donkey' are different 'kinds' and whether you stand by the claim that they cannot interbreed without producing sterile offspring?
Centuries of breeding experiments
have been attopted to cross the boundaries between kinds and the
result has never produced more tha a sterile animal.
Examples are:
Horse and donkey producing a sterile mule.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by twhiteheadWould I be wrong in assuming that you and a chemical soup are different 'kinds'? If not would you care to provide the evidence that links your ancestry with the primordial soup? Or at least fill in the gaps between the rain that fell on the rock for millions of years and your current existence, assuming of course that life 'evolved' from non-life.
Can you state here whether or not 'horse' and 'donkey' are different 'kinds' and whether you stand by the claim that they cannot interbreed without producing sterile offspring?
PS: If the above assumption does not accurately describe the evolutionary process would you care to explain to me what your version of 'evolution' is?