Fossil Find May Be 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution

[TheManFromAcme]

No customs? I would say obeying the Commandments, and praying, are both forms of custom/tradition.

Only Jesus? Did you mean Jesus and God? Just looking for clarification.

The 10 commandments are just that.... a command to follow his rules according to him. Following the 10 C's is not a tradition but a mandate from God. Jesus,God, Holy Spirit.........all one. Praying is what makes the relationship so to say.

[LnGrrrR]

The 10 commandments are just that.... a command to follow his rules according to him. Following the 10 C's is not a tradition but a mandate from God. Jesus,God, Holy Spirit.........all one. Praying is what makes the relationship so to say.

Right, but you're only following the Commandments because you believe in the religion. That would make it a custom of that religion, unique to that religion. (Well, technically, unique to the Judeo-Christian religion.)

A command is nearly the same as a custom/tradition in this sense. Look at the rules that Jewish people abide by, for instance, only eating things that are "kosher". It is a command for them, and it is also tradition/custom. The same goes with cir cision.

[rjv]

And of course science can't explain everything. That's why philosophy exists.

as someon with a degree in philosophy, i'd have to say you are absolutely right !

[RandomGuy]

Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?

Are you a part time politician? When you enter a cave and the guide tells you not to touch the 25 million year old stalac es, and when you read a school text book it reads.."stalac e take million years to form" they don't go into detail about how much fluoride is in the water. They make a point.

The earth is very old it has to be so the Bible can be proven wrong.

If you admit it only takes 20 thousand years to do something your giving in to creationism. If you stay hardheaded and insist the earth is 4 billion years old you find yourself always having to explain things that don't make sense so you find a warm happy place and participate in the discussion.

But I must warn you this is one of my stronger areas, even more than the NASA debates so proceed with caution...

you tree hugging underwater tea bagging man-seed drinking ......oops.....sorry, I was just warming up for the next Mavs vs Spurs debate...

dude your going to pull out the H2O X the power of one...bull ? Why would you cave in so fast? The books clearly read Stalac es take millions of years to form, I posted a "stalac e" that was formed in 40 years..what part of scoreboard do you not understand?

"my stronger areas"

Ah mouse, yer killin' me.

One long rambling dodge after another, true to form.

The answer to my question is yes, both the rate and amounts of minerals dissolving in water will vary, depending on the temperature and pressure.

"the books clearly read" is another vaguely supported statement. Which books? (I am fairly sure you have an answer for this one, yay)

The fact that you have some of these formation that formed in 40 years in no way conclusively demonstrates that all of the formations formed in short periods of time.

It's a bit like showing me a picture of a black cat and scoffing at the existance of white cats.

"The books clearly said that some cats are white, so therefore this picture of a black cat disproves the existance of white cats!"

At best you have a case of some sloppy editing in a statement "stalac es take millions of years to form" should then be modified to say "some stalac ies take millions of years to form"

One of the problems you face in trying to show that even really large stalac es are "only a few thoustand years old" is that volume is a cubic measurement.



The implication of this is that when the volume gets larger, the amount of time required to form that thing gets larger by cubed (time*time*time) factors.



For example:
A cone with a base radius of about 1.1 units, and 2 units long has a volume of about 2.53 cubic units

Double the measurements and you get a massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 2.2 units, and 4 units long has a volume of 20.26 cubic units.

Double the measurements yet again and you get yet another massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 4.4 units, and 8 units long has a volume of 162.1 cubic units.

In the course of making the object 4 times larger, we have made the volume increase by 64-fold.

This mathmatical relationship is yet another outgrowth of immutable laws of physics.

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.

Since this is your "area of strength" mouse, perhaps you can get me the phsyical measurements of those 40 year old stalac es.
Then we can find the physical measurement of a really large one, and we can see this in action.

If it is the case that really really large stalac es only formed over 10,000 years, then mouse, you are essentially telling me one of the following happened:

The rate of time passing in these caves was different from the rest of the universe.

The laws of chemistry were different in these caves than from the rest of the universe.

The laws of volume are today different than those of the rest of the universe.

Which law of phsyics are you disputing mouse?

[LnGrrrR]

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.

Which is why there's no Giant-Man in real life... sadly.

[TheManFromAcme]

Right, but you're only following the Commandments because you believe in the religion. That would make it a custom of that religion, unique to that religion. (Well, technically, unique to the Judeo-Christian religion.)

A command is nearly the same as a custom/tradition in this sense. Look at the rules that Jewish people abide by, for instance, only eating things that are "kosher". It is a command for them, and it is also tradition/custom. The same goes with cir cision.

Good point.

Gotta joke for you Ln, regarding cir cisions;

"Did you hear about the Rabbi who performed free cir cisions?
All he took was tips.

[LnGrrrR]

"Did you hear about the Rabbi who performed free cir cisions?
All he took was tips.

Nice.

Definitely made me chuckle. I'm a huge fan of cheesy puns; I'll have to try to remember this one.

[mouse]

"my stronger areas"

Ah mouse, yer killin' me.

One long rambling dodge after another, true to form.

The answer to my question is yes, both the rate and amounts of minerals dissolving in water will vary, depending on the temperature and pressure.

"the books clearly read" is another vaguely supported statement. Which books? (I am fairly sure you have an answer for this one, yay)

The fact that you have some of these formation that formed in 40 years in no way conclusively demonstrates that all of the formations formed in short periods of time.

It's a bit like showing me a picture of a black cat and scoffing at the existance of white cats.

"The books clearly said that some cats are white, so therefore this picture of a black cat disproves the existance of white cats!"

At best you have a case of some sloppy editing in a statement "stalac es take millions of years to form" should then be modified to say "some stalac ies take millions of years to form"

One of the problems you face in trying to show that even really large stalac es are "only a few thoustand years old" is that volume is a cubic measurement.



The implication of this is that when the volume gets larger, the amount of time required to form that thing gets larger by cubed (time*time*time) factors.



For example:
A cone with a base radius of about 1.1 units, and 2 units long has a volume of about 2.53 cubic units

Double the measurements and you get a massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 2.2 units, and 4 units long has a volume of 20.26 cubic units.

Double the measurements yet again and you get yet another massive increase in the volume.

A cone with a base radius of 4.4 units, and 8 units long has a volume of 162.1 cubic units.

In the course of making the object 4 times larger, we have made the volume increase by 64-fold.

This mathmatical relationship is yet another outgrowth of immutable laws of physics.

Given a steady rate or even fairly consistant rate of formation, as the size of any given formation doubles, the time it took to form that object increased by a factor of EIGHT.

Since this is your "area of strength" mouse, perhaps you can get me the phsyical measurements of those 40 year old stalac es.
Then we can find the physical measurement of a really large one, and we can see this in action.

If it is the case that really really large stalac es only formed over 10,000 years, then mouse, you are essentially telling me one of the following happened:

The rate of time passing in these caves was different from the rest of the universe.

The laws of chemistry were different in these caves than from the rest of the universe.

The laws of volume are today different than those of the rest of the universe.

Which law of phsyics are you disputing mouse?

I don't have to dispute anyone, I just point out that you and many teachers and professors in class are misinforming the students. What is so hard in saying..."Some stalac es are believed to be millions of years old but many have been found to be 40 to 100 years old" let the class decide for themselves who is spot on and who is off the mark.

Just like Evolution, why not give the students more than one option? why must it be we evolved from hot soup,then snails,to fish,then monkey then man. why can't the text books say there are other explanations?

Did you know there are many countries in this world that don't believe or teach evolution and most countries have no idea who Darwin even is.

I thought science was world wide? I thought the law of gravity was for all humans not just for Americans. Why is Evolution and Darwin (a theory made into a religion) Taylor made for Americans?

Just like John Smith and the Mormons.


oh and another thing. don't try and show me a very large stalac e and try and make it look like a million years old. If you knew anything about minerals you would know they don't take that long to form something long or big.



This mineral fountain was made in 1903 when a man stuck a pipe in the ground and allowed it to drip over a just a few years.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Mouse, why the is stalac e/mite growth evidence for a young earth? It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet. Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Just like Evolution, why not give the students more than one option? why must it be we evolved from hot soup,then snails,to fish,then monkey then man. why can't the text books say there are other explanations?

This is very simple - no-one is saying you can't talk about alternatives during religious instruction, but you should not discuss what cannot be proven in a science class. 'Intelligent design' cannot be proven because it relies on a grand creator for which there is no evidence. This point has already been fought in courts across your own country and lost. ID is NOT a scientific theory - science must be TESTABLE, and ID, something that relies on faith, cannot be tested.

OTOH, Darwinian evolution is being tested every day in numerous scientific disciplines from paleontology to ecology to genetics. It has a huge cannon of evidence to support it.

Do whatever you like, but to pretend that your faith is somehow scientific is absurd.

[RandomGuy]

Here is what an actual scientist says, and be warned he uses chemistry and to make his point, so don't let your eyes glaze over too much.

My favorite bit: "The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood."

--by everbody except the people that mouse believes are telling him the truth about "what geologists say".

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims
by Dave E. Matson
Copyright © 1994-2002

Young-earth "proof" #22: The largest stalac es and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

Since when is the age of the earth related to the age of a stalac e? If, in fact, a fat stalac e can form in 4400 years, so what? However, it does seems a bit su ious that the minimum age given by Dr. Hovind is exactly that allotted to the post-flood period. Such a figure begs investigation, but let's take first things first.

Did you ever wonder how a cave, like Carlsbad Caverns, formed? It wasn't dissolved out by rushing flood waters, being that calcium carbonate (the substance of limestone) is less soluble in water than granite! (Loftin, 1988, p.22). How many gorgeous caves have you seen carved out of granite by rushing flood waters? Nor was it carved out of soft sediment. The whole thing would have caved in like a cold soufflé long before the job was finished. Nor was it eroded out by rapid, underground rivers and streams. Vadose caves are formed in that manner, but their shape is very unlike the phreatic (solution) caves such as Carlsbad Caverns and Mammoth Cave. Diagrams of phreatic caves often resemble city maps with lots of streets intersecting at right angles. Hamilton Cave, in West Virginia, is an excellent example. You don't get that kind of pattern with river or stream erosion. "Streams often flow through caves and contribute very slightly to the process, but this is almost always a later, secondary development." (Loftin, 1988, p.22).

Carlsbad Caverns was eaten out, cubic inch by cubic inch, by carbonic acid which turned the calcium carbonate to calcium bicarbonate. (The Caverns are unusual in that sulfuric acid has also played a leading role.) Calcium bicarbonate dissolves easily in water and is carried away. Carbonic acid is a weak acid produced when carbon dioxide combines with water. Almost all the carbon dioxide involved in this cave-making process comes from "...the activity of plants and animals in the soil rather than from the air (Moore and Nicholas, 1964, p.7)." (Loftin, 1988, p.22). The atmospheric concentration is way too low to be of much use. It is the metabolism of plants and soil organisms which build up the carbon dioxide concentration to a point where it can do some good.

As rainwater percolates through the soil it combines with the carbon dioxide to form the weak, carbonic acid which becomes part of the general flow of water through the limestone. Cracks deep within the limestone are widened over the ages, and underwater caverns are eventually formed. Most of the etching action apparently goes on just below the water level, thus the tendency for phreatic caves to have distinct levels.

Before any stalac es, stalagmites, or flowstones can form, the water must be drained out of that portion of the cave. In allowing 4400 years for the largest stalac es and flowstones, Dr. Hovind has neglected to allot any time at all to the cave-making process! In his scenario the oldest stalac es start forming right after Noah's flood drains away. Sorry, but I don't buy the implied claim that Carlsbad Caverns was deposited by that flood! I know that Noah's flood can perform miracles in the hands of scientific creationists, but I absolutely draw the line there! The cave-making process requires a whole lot more time than the stalac e-making process.

The [stalac es, stalagmites, and flowstones] are formed when calcium carbonate in solution in the water is deposited out, but this process is not one of simple evaporation. The air in most caves, even in the most arid regions, is highly moist; therefore, when water soaking down from above reaches the air of the open cave, it does not lose water to the air and leave minerals behind. This is clearly shown by the composition of the deposits, which consists of almost pure calcium carbonate. When the slightly acid water with its dissolved minerals meets the moist air of the cave, a minute amount of the carbon dioxide leaves the water and goes into the air. This process is almost exactly the reverse of the major process of cave formation, for, when carbon dioxide goes into the air, the solution becomes supersaturated and a small amount of calcium carbonate is precipitated out (Moore and Nicholas, 1964).

(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Needless to say, this is not the kind of operation you can turn up the spigot on. A rapid flow of water would simply carry the minerals with it, not to mention diluting the carbonic acid which is produced in limited quan ies. We're dealing with a drip-by-drip scenario.

Creationists sometimes point to some very rapid ac ulations which superficially resemble the calcium carbonate formations in caves.

For example, on the mortared brickwork of old forts and places of that sort, formations which look to the naked eye like stalac es and stalagmites sometimes form in less than one hundred years. However, those formations are composed of gypsum, which is a salt of calcium sulfate. Unlike calcium carbonate, gypsum is moderately soluble in water, which means that transport and recrystallization can take place much more rapidly (White, 1976, p.304). There is a whole class of cave deposits called evaporite minerals which consist of those minerals which dissolve readily in water. As might be expected, these formations are ephemeral when compared to the carbonates which form all the really large and impressive cave formations. The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood.

(Loftin, 1988, p.23)

Here's some more information. This point is particularly important since creationists love to point out such examples.

Many people have found that stalac es forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalac e growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to recons ute calcium carbonate, and produce stalac es. This is why stalac es formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalac es 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalac es of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.47)

By the way, geologic opinion holds that the Carlsbad Caverns began to be etched out 60 million years ago. The present chambers were excavated from 1 to 8 million years ago, depending on their depth. As for stalac es, the Bulletin of the National Speleological Society (37: p.21, 1975) gave their observed growth rates as ranging from 0.1 to 10 centimeters per thousand years. An exceptional spurt of growth might exceed the higher rate for short periods of time, but it could no more be maintained than a winning streak at the Las Vegas poker tables. Moore and Sullivan (1978, p.47) give an upper average rate of "only a little more" than 0.1 mm/year [10 centimeters or 2.5 inches per thousand years]. Stalagmites grow at a similar rate. Areas with a lot of overgrowth and tropical temperatures would have the higher rates. Thus, a 60-foot giant, as might be found in Carlsbad Caverns, would have a minimum estimated age of about 180,000 years

Fornaca and Rinaldi (1968) used the (thorium-230) Th-230 (thorium-232) Th-232 ratio method to date an old stalagmite, probably in Europe, and got an age of 180,000 years for its formation. That stalagmite had stopped growing 90,000 years ago, as indicated by the radiometric dating method, so its true age is 270,000 years. A flowstone in the famous Romanelli cave of Apulia was dated at 40,000 years. Thus, an extrapolation of the observed rates of stalac e formation and the radiometric dating method (using thorium) put us in the same ball park for large cave formations. Dr. Hovind's figure of 4400 years for the oldest stalac es is much too modest!

As it turns out, a careful study of the ratios of Oxygen-18 and Oxygen-16 allows us to estimate the temperature at the time a particular layer was added to a stalac e or stalagmite. Studies of this type have built up an interesting picture:

As we go to press, research is very active in this field. In the latest results, speleothems indicate that the average surface temperature in mid-la ude cave regions reached a peak 3 degrees C above the present about 8000 years ago, that it was as much as 10 degrees C colder than at present from 15,000 to 80,000 years ago, warmer than now from 80,000 to 120,000 years ago, colder from 120,000 to 170,000 years ago, warmer from 170,000 to 200,000 years ago, and colder for an undetermined period before that.

(Moore and Sullivan, 1978, p.65)

What we have here is a remarkable record of the last three advances of the present Ice Age! The warm period of 80,000-120,000 years is centered on the Last Interglacial (Ipswichian) interlude; the warm period of 170,000-200,000 years ago takes in the Penultimate Interglaciation (Hoxnian) interlude. The cold period of 15,000-80,000 years starts near the known beginning of the last ice advance, which corresponds to our Main Wisconsinan glaciation. Is that just a coincidence? This data is also beautifully reflected in the study of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252). Another coincidence?

Dr. Hovind claims that there was only one glacial episode which began after the earth had a collision with an ice-packed comet. Overlooking the numerous impossibilities involved in that scenario, we might ask if there is any direct evidence for more than one glacial advance. The answer is a resounding "Yes!"

But as the study of the glacial deposits was carried westward into Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, two distinct sheets of drift were found at many places to be separated by old soil, beds of peat, or layers of till that had been leached and decayed (Fig. 18-10). Here the uppermost drift, like that in New England, appeared fresh, but the buried drift sheet showed the effect of chemical decay and was obviously much the older. Moreover, in places, the soil and peat, or gravels, between two such sheets of till included fossil wood, leaves, or bones, recording the existence of animals and plants of temperate climate. Thus it came to be realized, about 1870, that a continental ice sheet had developed more than once, and that warm interglacial ages had intervened.

(Dunbar & Waage, 1969, pp.434-435)

In time it was found that there were several major advances of the present Ice Age, and that major fluctuations within these advances had occurred. The following table lists the approximate times of the glaciations in North America during the last two million years. These periods match a study of ocean-water temperatures interpreted from data of foraminifera in deep-sea cores (Strahler, 1987, p.252).

As you can see, various evidences for an old Earth tie together. From a study of oxygen isotopes in stalac es we got the last few periods of glacial advance. Studies of the foraminifera of deep-sea cores support the findings gleaned from stalac es. The study of foraminifera also supply information to flesh out the periods of the last three major glacial episodes. That there is more than one major glacial episode is, in turn, supported by the remains of temperate forests and animal fossils found between some of the sheets of drift, the bottom sheet showing a sharp increase in age as indicated by chemical weathering and other observations.

In passing, let me point out that clear evidence for glaciation exists as far back as the Precambrian. Great eras of glaciation have come and gone long before the present polar caps were ever established! (See Topic A5).

We can forget about Dr. Hovind's simple snowball theory of the Ice Age. It can't begin to explain the facts that we now have.

http://www.evolution-creationism.us/...ion_rates.html

[RandomGuy]

The [stalac es, stalagmites, and flowstones] are formed when calcium carbonate in solution in the water is deposited out, but this process is not one of simple evaporation. The air in most caves, even in the most arid regions, is highly moist; therefore, when water soaking down from above reaches the air of the open cave, it does not lose water to the air and leave minerals behind. This is clearly shown by the composition of the deposits, which consists of almost pure calcium carbonate. When the slightly acid water with its dissolved minerals meets the moist air of the cave, a minute amount of the carbon dioxide leaves the water and goes into the air. This process is almost exactly the reverse of the major process of cave formation, for, when carbon dioxide goes into the air, the solution becomes supersaturated and a small amount of calcium carbonate is precipitated out (Moore and Nicholas, 1964).

I actually learned something. These things are not formed by evaporative processes, as I had kind of assumed in my mind. I also learned about the formation of some types of caves.

YAY. Thanks mouse! Without your pestering, I would have never stumbled across this. I mean that very sincerely.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalac es to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalac es to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?

[mouse]

Mouse, why the is stalac e/mite growth evidence for a young earth? It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet. Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.

Ruff you don't have the class and patients to debate me and others in the forum. you seem to have a short fuse, you take things personal, and when your not tooting your horn about all the education you have?
your rambling in areas that are not necessary and do not add to the topic.

but to answer some of your rant.....

Mouse, why the is stalac e/mite growth evidence for a young earth?

When did I say the earth was young? I just said you and all your educated Scientist buddy have no proof it's 4 Billion years old that is pure speculation.

It's a simple physical-chemical deposition process that can occur very quickly or very slowly. It's absolutely irrelevant.

The same "simple physical-chemical deposition process" that was used to say in the school text books Stalac es take millions of years to form? Why can't you and your super intelligent buddies add the pictures of the subway and say in some cases stalac es can form in just 40 years? What are you scared of?

Why don't you take a Geology 101 course at your local university. That will teach you a little about the last 500 million years or so of geology on the planet.

Why don't you live in Texas for 20 years before you become a Spurs fan?

Why don't you get married 4 times before you give out advice to the young teens in the forum about relationships?

Why don't you take a two year collage course in fashion design before you tell your girlfriend what dress to wear?

You think a paper in a frame hanging in your wall makes you special?
you want a list of well respected people who we look up to that never finished high school?

Stop tooting your horn about all your education you have and just answer the dam questions without acting like some Aussie tree hugging Foster drinking .


I keep it simple stop lying to the kids in school what is so hard to understand?

I don't give a rats ass how many courses you took when you was living on the top of Mt Kilimanjaro with professor whoopee studying the plant life of the very rare Gardenia tubifera kula flower.

So get off your master degree white horse and try and keep it real brah!

simple questions need simple answers. I don't care who wins I want the lies to stop.

Then we'll talk. But of course you won't do that because you'd be subjecting yourself to a massive bout of cognitive dissonance - where your beliefs are contradicted by the physical and observable evidence (gathered independently by millions of people over the last few centuries, so you can forget grand conspiracies).

Well if you knew this already you shouldn't waste your time with me!

As for countries that don't teach evolution, please make a list. I bet it consists entirely of fundamentalist nations. You won't find a modern democracy on the list.

Modern democracy, you mean brained-washed to think like us? So that is why we are in Iraq..... we want them to worship Darwin?

Now it all makes sense I can see why our troops are dying its to help spread the lies of Evolution. (sorry I said our troops, there could be some Aussie's in Iraq also) the ones who didn't go to collage for 11 years just to get on a message board just to be humiliated by a pot smoking midget.

[mouse]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalac es to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalac es to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?

I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago.

We live in a world where we can't even cure cancer or keep from fighting each other like a bunch of savages. We can't even figure out how to feed the everyone even though we have more food than we can eat. And you really think these same assholes are smart enough to know exactly what took place billions of years ago from looking at old fossils and arctic ice?

I don't mind people supporting the Scientist be lets be real, they are humans and have made many mistakes and miscalculations. it's the people like Ruff who are very bias and will never admit they may be wrong, it's guys like him that make the rest of the intelligent people on earth look bad. Who wants to see Darwin and the scientist's get their salads tossed daily? ....not me....

[mouse]

One of my main problems with this whole schtick is that I haven't seen a single "textbook" or claim from a reputable geologist that "stalac es are millions of years old".

Elementary school book.

[tlongII]

mouse getting pwned again. nothing to see here.

[mouse]

mouse getting pwned again. nothing to see here.

First off, how do you know people don't want to see me pwn3d?
I love topics people get p3wnd. They are some of the most entertaining like when agel_luv gets attacked by the Sinners or when Ruff gets taint ripped open those are topics worth reading sometimes and you want to deprive the Club poster of that right and luxury? just because your like me and have no one to spoon with tonight there is really no need for the rude gestapo treatment,this is not Germany and I am not a Jew

Second ,why would you make a topic if you don't want others to read it?

And third, in order for you to get posters to read your reply of you telling them to move along, I'm afraid your in a catch 22 since the only way they can read what you are saying, don't they kinda have to first open the topic and if so, wouldn't that really increase the lurkers and therefore bring more traffic of posters to read your topic that you want to move along in, wouldn't that sorta defeat the whole purpose of the post you just made?

[mouse]

I will say this though, after watching Avatar you Darwin lovers have to now act like you don't like the movie or think it could never happen because if you do then you support a creator,

that movie was a combination of Riven and Mechwarrior,with a touch of brave heart.

[LnGrrrR]

I will say this though, after watching Avatar you Darwin lovers have to now act like you don't like the movie or think it could never happen because if you do then you support a creator,

You make no sense.

That's like saying if you like South Park you can't believe in God, because they make fun of God.

[RandomGuy]

Lastly in all this, you will note that the people who show the 40 year old stalac es to scoff at "geologists, who claim stalac es to be millions of years old", never really talk about the chemistry of the formations they picture.

Wonder why that is? Could it possibly be that they don't know how the things in their pictures are formed, or if they do, they are deliberately not telling that part of it to hide the truth?

Which do you think it is, mouse, ignorance or duplicity?

I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago.

We live in a world where we can't even cure cancer or keep from fighting each other like a bunch of savages. We can't even figure out how to feed the everyone even though we have more food than we can eat. And you really think these same assholes are smart enough to know exactly what took place billions of years ago from looking at old fossils and arctic ice?

I don't mind people supporting the Scientist be lets be real, they are humans and have made many mistakes and miscalculations. it's the people like Ruff who are very bias and will never admit they may be wrong, it's guys like him that make the rest of the intelligent people on earth look bad. Who wants to see Darwin and the scientist's get their salads tossed daily? ....not me....

That's not really an answer to my question.

I have out right proven to you that the people with the 40 year old stalac e pictures have ONLY TOLD YOU HALF THE TRUTH.

They showed you a picture of something that looks like a cave stalac e, but DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT IT WAS FORMED DIFFERENTLY.

Either:
They are ignorant of the fact that of different rates/methods of formation,

Or:
They know about it and deliberately withheld the fact of the different rates/methods of formation

What do you think the reason they only told you half the truth is, mouse, ignorance of science or duplicity?

[RandomGuy]

I really can't speak for others. Some poeple have an agenda they want to prove the earth is young to help support the Bible. I on the other hand don't care about the Bible I do care about some young kid who goes to collage and becomes a scientist just to tell me I came from hot suop 4 billion years ago...

The weight of evidence for an old earth and an old universe is incontrovertible, and overwhelming. There is evidence from multiple fields of science, all supporting each other, and all ultimately backed by solid princples of chemistry and physics.

In case you didn't actually read the whole long article I posted, not only were the stalac es provably much longer lived, the people showing you those 40 year old pictures never really addressed that the chemical processes that form some caves take similarly long periods of time, if not longer.

You also imply that only SOME of the people attempting to prove a young earth having an agenda to support ONE interpretation of the Bible. That is untrue, it is ALL of them that have the exact same agenda.

Some of them are more honest about that agenda than others, but they ALL have the same agenda.

That agenda is attempting to dissuade people that their dogma, i.e. the earth is young because they literally interpret the Bible, is not provably false.

Doubt is the enemy of belief, and provable facts that contradict dogma is the surest way to introduce doubt. Doubt this therefore seen as a tool of evil, of Satan.

If you are fighting Satan, what is a little sin of lying a little? It then becomes so easy to rationalize lies and illogical statements.

These are the people you are putting your faith in to tell you the truth. People that have the utmost motivation NOT to tell the truth.

[mouse]

You make no sense.

IBM said the same thing when the mouse was first introduced.

That's like saying if you like South Park you can't believe in God, because they make fun of God.

First off I never said you can or can't do anything. I said the Evolutionist/hard core Darwin supporters have to criticize the movie and say man can not be created by someone intelligent it goes against their beliefs.

It blows the snail to man theory out of the water man must evolve from monkey and apes anything else is Intelligent design and they can't support that.

Look pal, you would have to know a little about Evolution and creation in order to understand my point and frankly I don't have time to explain it to you.

[mouse]

What do you think the reason they only told you half the truth is, mouse, ignorance of science or duplicity?

Since I have not researched the photo or the history of it I may not reply just yet on why they left out certain elements of the photo.

I will as soon as i can and if you have any links you could save me sometime.

But keep in mind that is only one of many stalac es photos that are popping up all over the world. The point was that Science in the text books only give on side of all issues they never mention an alternative solution.


They don't start a book saying many years ago, or thousands of years ago,

they flat out say 4 Billion years ago ....like these Jesus haters really tink with carbon dating and fossils can tells us not only how old the earth is but what took place. How in the is anyone going to tells us about the big bang billions of years ago when we can't even figure out how stone henge and the pyramids were built?

How in the name of all that is holy can any man with a straight face try to explain to me what happened 4 billion years ago when that same man can't even tell me what the Antikythera mechanism is it is only dates back to 100 BC. Scientist can't explain all kinds of that has been around for only 100 to 1000 years but we know in great detail what took place 4 Billion years ago? Come on already stop the bull .

You want to go into carbon dating? I have my list of scientific ups ready just say the word.

[tlongII]

mouse, you keep saying 4 billion years ago. It is actually closer to 4.5 billion years ago. Just a heads up...