Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 9:00 PM
15 online now:
Percy (Admin) (1 member, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,099 Year: 5,136/19,786 Month: 1,258/873 Week: 154/460 Day: 96/58 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Evolution in the Anarctic
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 44 (7542)
03-21-2002 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 7:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You havent read the post that just followed that one o take it. My argument in that one was what sort of evidence do you possess that no geologist on planet earth has,that 4500 years ago,the continents all started to move?"
--See my response to Mark24's post 18.


TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 7:48 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 8:09 PM LudvanB has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 44 (7546)
03-21-2002 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 8:03 PM


"TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?"
--Right, I think you are commenting on a different post, I would like a reply to my post #28 in this thread. I give a very plausable explination based on known naturalistic science.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 8:03 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 8:19 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 44 (7550)
03-21-2002 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 8:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC,i'm not talking about your wish list that you NEED for your model to work. I asked you to share with me...and everyone else here,this OBSERVABLE,QUANTIFIABLE,QUALIFIABLE evidence that you seem to possess that indicates to you that 4500 years ago,there was a super continent that DID break up into what we can see today. In other words,im not interested in what you BELIEVE happened or WANT to believe happened but on what you can DEMONSTRATE happened based on evidence observable TODAY. clear enough for you?"
--Right, I think you are commenting on a different post, I would like a reply to my post #28 in this thread. I give a very plausable explination based on known naturalistic science.


You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one...and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 8:09 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:27 PM LudvanB has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 44 (7558)
03-21-2002 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 8:19 PM


"You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one..."
--If I might quote myself from another thread with basically the same comment:
quote:

--What 'could have happend' is the most your ever going to get from an inference on the past ludvan, it is what Evolution is entirely based on, along with gradualistic geologic time, its a 'could have happend' explination. Now whether this explination can explain all evidence, and is plausable, is something that is worthy of discussion. If you can challenge whether it can explain such phenomena or its plausability, have at it.

"and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"..."
--Hey, I should start a new revolution. (they have a pre-consieved assumption on gradualism and uniformitarianism, everything must comply with that scale, and how can it not when it the time scale is so long?)

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 8:19 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 9:33 PM TrueCreation has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 44 (7559)
03-21-2002 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:27 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You give a good explanation of what MIGHT have happened IF certain elements DID all come into play as noted...and at the risk of repeating myself tonight,i'm still gonna ask you what EVIDENCE you can point to that would lead ME to believe that this explanation is the correct one..."
--If I might quote myself from another thread with basically the same comment:
"and then explain to me how come 200 years of geological studies simply "missed" it and needed the help of a highschool kid to open their eyes to the "truth"..."
--Hey, I should start a new revolution. (they have a pre-consieved assumption on gradualism and uniformitarianism, everything must comply with that scale, and how can it not when it the time scale is so long?)


And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it. You conclude that you are the only one among these many scientists who "ever thought outside the box",so to speak...that they never considered a point of view similar to yours and rejected it because it didn't hold water. lots of pre-conception here as well,if you dont mind my saying so.

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-21-2002]

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:27 PM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:42 PM LudvanB has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (7561)
03-21-2002 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 9:33 PM


"And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it."
--This is an assumption based on uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that how it occurs today, is how it has always occured, and in doing so, reject any other notion on this fundamental assumption. So again I must ask, is there an objection toward my hypothesis, may it become a theory, as I see it at this point just as conceivable as the theory of plate-tectonics.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 9:33 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 9:57 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded
 Message 41 by quicksink, posted 03-22-2002 4:20 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3303 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 44 (7564)
03-21-2002 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 7:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"1/ There was a lower mantle viscosity for a year, & provide a model that allows this to start & stop within the flood time scale."

--Its not exactly that low viscosity was a one time event, that is, that it was normal (relatively as today) pre-flood, and it suddenly jumped off the scale and then settled down post-flood. It was more as, post flood, heat accumulated since its creation by effects such as mantle pressure, and isotopic disintegration of elements such as uranium and thorium. This heat as it accumulated would produce more and more pressure and from its heat and pressure it would have been eating away at weak points in the earths lithosphere (most of the lithosphere would have been a thicker continental equivalent density mass). Magma upwelling would have been chewing away at the crust and was either broken by this alone, or by impacting bodies transfering their energy to the ground and rifting nearby magma upwelling sources, which also would have contributed little heat early on.
--I further explain in #2


What evidence do you have that uranium & thorium was at greater levels 4,500 years ago in the mantle than today, given the high half lives it would seem to me that the levels wouldn’t be much less than today, & when you add the fusion factor in, would make for a relative constant. So why would heat in the mantle be higher in temperature then than now?

quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"2/ That radioactive decay was significantly different 4,500 years ago. Despite positive evidence that at high temperatures & pressure half lives show little to no variation."
--Not different, though at an increasing rate of decay because more nuclei would have been present to have yet to release their energy in desintegration. I don't think I would be to argue with how decay would have been irregular, in this scence.

"Also, you need to explain why this radioactive decay occurred during the flood year only. What CAUSED the rate of decay to increase for a year, then return to "normal" levels?"
--Not just during the flood, this would have been when lithosphere was becoming increasingly thin and the reason for higher decay rates is from higher quantities of nuclei to decay.

"It must've done, or the continents would've been hurtling around since creation, according to you."
--Continents wouldn't have been hurtling around because the lithosphere would have been much to stable.

"If you can’t do this, point 1/ is falsified, & you STILL need to explain the alleged high rate of continental drift you assert occurred 4,500 years ago."
--Newely researched points, though I expect to add on to this hypothesis as I do more reading.


Again, why were there so many uranium & thorium isotopes present to cause this “runaway heating”, but they’re no longer there? You say half lives were the same, so we wouldn’t appreciably have much less U & Th than today, as I say, once you add the fusion factor, it’s not much less at all. So why did the heat build up? Are you seriously suggesting that continental crust is such a good insulator? Can you back this up if you are suggesting it? Given this is a process that was in operation from -6,000 to -4,500 years it would've caused a slow increase, melting the lower crust/lithosphere thereby allowing greater heat to escape, allowing an equilibrium to be reached, so it still doesn't explain a rapid 40 day "gone garrety" flood.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 7:26 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (7565)
03-21-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And you conclude that this "pre-conceived assumption" IS NOT based on very good deductive resoning or decades of experience in their respective field,i take it."
--This is an assumption based on uniformitarianism, that is, the idea that how it occurs today, is how it has always occured, and in doing so, reject any other notion on this fundamental assumption. So again I must ask, is there an objection toward my hypothesis, may it become a theory, as I see it at this point just as conceivable as the theory of plate-tectonics.


I'm not a geologist myself TC and neither are you so my objection to your theory stems from the fact that actual geologists completely disagree with it. You accuse them of assuming uniformitarianism and that may be true,to some extent,although,as i said,i doubt that you are the first to raise this issue. It is more likely that people have accepted the assumption of uniformitarianism AFTER pondering long and hard on the question and deciding that this assumption was quite valid. And you have your own pre-conceived assumptions,mind you. You assume that the Bible is the word of God and as such that no explanation that contradicts biblical teachings can be true. Because lets face it,TC,the pre conceived assumption of the Bible being INNERANT is the basis of creationism or creation science,whatever you call it. So i dont really think its fair for you to "condemn" others for doing roughly the same thing you do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:42 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 11:12 PM LudvanB has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3788 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 39 of 44 (7571)
03-21-2002 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by LudvanB
03-21-2002 9:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
I'm not a geologist myself TC and neither are you so my objection to your theory stems from the fact that actual geologists completely disagree with it. You accuse them of assuming uniformitarianism and that may be true,to some extent,although,as i said,i doubt that you are the first to raise this issue. It is more likely that people have accepted the assumption of uniformitarianism AFTER pondering long and hard on the question and deciding that this assumption was quite valid. And you have your own pre-conceived assumptions,mind you. You assume that the Bible is the word of God and as such that no explanation that contradicts biblical teachings can be true. Because lets face it,TC,the pre conceived assumption of the Bible being INNERANT is the basis of creationism or creation science,whatever you call it. So i dont really think its fair for you to "condemn" others for doing roughly the same thing you do.

JM: Well, I am a geologist and I my objection to TC's idea has to do with the fact that it has not been well thought out. His a priori assumption that you can squeeze everything into a much shorter time span has implications. He refuses to delve into those implications. I don't know why. Perhaps because the overly naive and simplistic view is easier to accept or that he is simply not capable of understanding how his entire hypothesis falls apart when delving into specifics. This is a general problem with creationists. To the outside world, the 'glossed over' explanation might even sound reasonable. The problem is with Tc and other creationists is that their house is built of straw. When the big bad reality wolf comes huffing and puffing, their house falls apart. They, like the pigs living in the straw house, live in oblivious bliss because it feels good. I've pointed TC in the direction of the details, but given his penchant for not reading the material (re his defense of Humphrey's) he's not likely to recognize the egregious errors in his analysis.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-21-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 9:57 PM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by LudvanB, posted 03-21-2002 11:30 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 44 (7580)
03-21-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Joe Meert
03-21-2002 11:12 PM


It's been my observation as well that TC seem to like extrapolating small factoids into actual rules when they should actually be considered exceptions to them (case in point,Tyke and cancer cells...ask him about those someday...or his pool experiment to "prove" that insects could have survived the flood)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Joe Meert, posted 03-21-2002 11:12 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 44 (7605)
03-22-2002 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by TrueCreation
03-21-2002 9:42 PM


quote:
"May I quote
It was once thought that dinosaurs were strictly tropical or sub-tropical animals that avoided the colder regions of the world. In the late 1970s/early 1980s dinosaur remains were discovered along the southern coast of Victoria, in southeastern Australia, an area that would have been within the Antarctic circle at the time the animals lived. In 1987 dinosaur remains were also found within the Arctic circle in North Antarctica."
--Lol, Exactly, they require gradualistic continental drift for this to be true. Have you not read your quote?

Great. Now where is your evidence to disprove or at least challenge this theory?

quote:

"Funny how that proof is undoubtedly based on incredibly in accurate methods of dating, yes, the same dating methods that indicate a very old planet."
--If you continue to assert that these relative dating methods are evidence of an indevidual interperetation of the old earth, than I find a great amount of ignorance in you. I should hope we do not continue asserting this. You would doubtedly even understand the evidence of such catacalysmic sea-floor spreading.

So how do you date rocks, TC?

quote:

"Again, the Bible makes references to Israel, the Mideast, and the Mediterranean. Now let me describe to you the position of the continents half-way to today’s position:
North America resembles a lemonade jug with an alta california on the back. There is not Europe, nor is their a Arabian Peninsula. Africa is far from Asia and has a bite in its top. South America is attached to Africa by a narrow bridge of land. India is around present day South Africa, and Australia is still a part of Antarctica. Asia is completely deformed- The areas of the present day malay and thai peninsulas can be discerned as nothing more than a leg, about 15 degrees east of where it is now. The rest of Asia is unrecognizable.
Doesn’t sound like the Biblical world of Jesus, where Moses managed to part the non-existent red sea"
--Silly, the bible was written after the flood. I think I am well aware of the placement of the pangean continent.

I am aware that the Bible was written after the flood. I am referring to the new testament. In it, all land masses are completely identical to those of today. But you have passages to suggest otherwise.

quote:

"Had the Red Sea existed in Moses’s time, You would be squashing most continental drift in to a 2000 year time period. A little unrealistic."
--Very realistic, the seafloor spreading at the red sea, is quite slow, many orders of magnitude of decrease from say the east-pacific rise.

Ok- let’s say that continental drift was faster right up to the time of Jesus, when it mysteriously slowed down.
Now scientists, looking at magnetic striped, have found that continental drift has remained at a steady pace (of course I don’t have to explain that)
If we saw an indredible acceleration of continental drift up to year zero of Christ, then we would see magnetic striping packed in early striped, and then at present day layers later. Do we?

quote:

"Really? Well, India would have to be moving damn fast to sprout such a tell mountain in around, oh, let’s say, 500-300 years."
--Yes it would have.

Funny how the Indians made no mention of their continent slamming into Asia. Neither did the Tibetans or the Chinese make note of the rapidly sprouting Himalayas. They were around at Jesus’s time and before.

quote:

"You certainly seem to have it all figured out- funny, though, how th Egyptians, who according to you came around 300 years after the flood, never mentioned incredibly fast rates of drift, high tectonic activity."
--Why would they, their not too close to any major spreading or continental collision.

As I said before, Africa had a large bite in its northern region. This bite would have had to mend itself 300 years post-flood. Meanwhile, the Ehtiopian Highlands would have been growing at an amazing rate, which they surely would have noticed.

quote:

"Funny, also, how they managed to construct 100 foot high temples while the ground was shaking beneath their feet."
--Even if there were, It would take an earthquake many magnitudes more catastrophic than todays most powerful to have any effect on such multi-ton bricks.

I concede, that was a bad argument. But their would be earthquakes many magnitudes of today- the continents were speeding across the planet.
And what about the Chinese/Japanese? Oh- I forgot, the Japanese didn’t exist at that time- only after Japan was formed by miraculaous volcanic activity did the Chinese migrate to the region.

quote:

"I’ve been to those pyramids, I can tell you that no one could construct them while the plates were speeding across the planet in a sick game of bumper cars."
--You have a very large missunderstanding of plate tectonics, an in the very least, the model of rapid continental movement.

See above.

quote:

"
This creationist site suggests that all continental drift occurred during the flood. What’s your response to that?"
--I'd have to say they never read a geology book in their life (continental drift occurs in modern times):

Like most creationists.

quote:

--The most intense drifting would have occured during the flood though yes.

So where are those tighly packed magnetic stripes? Where are those quickly changing northern orientations? Where is your proof?

quote:

"Coal comes first, and polar dinosaurs come second. Hot-cold-evolution"
--Coal beds are composed of organic 'plants', not 'warm dinosaurs' let alone any dinosaurs. And again, coal beds are found all throughout the world in Carboniferous sediments, thats a good 180 million years of (assumption with gradualistic) geologic time.

Please don’t insult me- I think I know that coal is made of ancient planets. I never suggested otherwise. What I did so absurdly suggest is that if coal existed in Antarctica, other warm-weather animals (dinosaurs, maybe) would too. And this site seems to agree with my crazy opinion
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/antarct.jsp

quote:

Hammer says the animals probably lived more than 175 million years ago, in the middle Jurassic. Few fossils are known from that period, when dinosaurs are thought to have reached their largest sizes. The new find is one of the earliest large carnosaurs; a similar sized skeleton without a skull has been found in South America. The Antarctic dinosaur is 8 to 9 metres long, shorter than the 12-metre Allosaurus of the late Jurassic.

This site also mentions the cold-weather dinosaurs.

quote:

"So which scientist discovered that polar regions in Antarctica or Australia were moving north into warmer areas?"
--Some clips from Encarta for your convenience:
quote:

The theory of plate tectonics was formulated during the early 1960s, and it revolutionized the field of geology. Scientists have successfully used it to explain many geological events, such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions as well as mountain building and the formation of the oceans and continents.
Plate tectonics arose from an earlier theory proposed by German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912. Looking at the shapes of the continents, Wegener found that they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Using this observation, along with geological evidence he found on different continents, he developed the theory of continental drift, which states that today's continents were once joined together into one large landmass.
Geologists of the 1950s and 1960s found evidence supporting the idea of tectonic plates and their movement. They applied Wegener's theory to various aspects of the changing earth and used this evidence to confirm continental drift. By 1968 scientists integrated most geologic activities into a theory called the New Global Tectonics, or more commonly, Plate Tectonics.
"Plate Tectonics." Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Were you trying to educate me, or make a point? You have shown me no data that dinosaurs, adapted for the cold, were forced into warmer regions.

quote:

And about the the first theoretical scientist to assert this hypothesis of continental drift:
quote:

Wegener, Alfred (1880-1930), German meteorologist, noted chiefly for advocating the theory of continental drift at a time when the technological means for proving the theory had not yet been developed. Wegener served as professor of meteorology at Graz University from 1924 to 1930. Drawing on several lines of evidence, he rejuvenated the idea that all the continents were once joined as one landmass, which he named Pangaea. He further proposed that this ancestral supercontinent had begun breaking up approximately 200 million years earlier into a northern portion, which he called Laurasia, and a southern portion, named Gondwanaland by the Austrian geologist Eduard Suess. Wegener's theories, described in The Origin of Continents and Oceans (1915; trans. 1924), did not receive scientific corroboration, however, until the 1960s when oceanographic research revealed the phenomenon known as seafloor spreading. Wegener died during an expedition to Greenland.
"Wegener, Alfred." Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


We finished studying Wegener in class.

quote:

"Perhaps you should give me some data."
--I don't know what you would use it for, I hope were not 'side stepping', isn't that the Creationists job? :\

Data for your theory? How is that side-stepping?
Your theory cannot coexist with gradualism. Therefore, there must be some evidence that indicates a chaotic drift, that contradicts gradualism.

quote:

"So this means, my friend, that Antarctica was once warm (when it was part of the Pangaea), evident in the existence of coal, which requires warm and moist conditions."
--Actually, coal does not require 'warm and moist conditions' for formation, it requires pressure and heat.

Well that’s just wrong. It is true that decayed plants can only be compressed with heat and extreme pressure, but those plants can only get there in the first place in warm and moist conditions. Here is an interesting quote that should hust you a little

quote:

The warm, moist climate of the Carboniferous was ideally suited for the dense forests that left their remains, and also for the amphibians and insects that diversified and radiated throughout the world during the time.

From:
http://seaborg.nmu.edu/earth/Pennsylv.html
You told me that most coal formed during this time, and even reffered to Antarctic coal originating in this period. Hmm…

quote:

"Antarctica moved gradually south, slowly enough to allow the appearance of newly-equipped species.
But you know better, judging by what data?"
--judging by the fact of a very flawed missunderstanding.

Please explain your theory then, and back up your findings with data.

quote:

"Obviously, since it contradicts his divine word."
--I need not excavate scripture to prove anything here, it is apparent enough itself..

It was a joke.

quote:

"Maybe you could be so kind as to go into specifics."
--specifics on what? I have shown you why you have a missunderstanding on what your quote says.

Perhaps you could provide me with core samples, or evidence of chaotic drift in magnetic striping.

quote:

"I’m just so stupid, you have to keep reiterating your basic points, backed up with data."
--Your giving me the data, and your missunderstanding it yourself, I need not to do any research at this point.

Yes you do- you would like to disprove the theory of gradualism, and prove chaos- now do it please.

quote:

"Note the smiley face beside my statement. You jumped on the opportunity to insult my level of intelligence."
--If I wished to do so, I would have done so. I said 'no comment'. I think I was being nice, most people on these boards would take the hit.

Give me a break! You know your intention… I’m not that dumb.
Why didn’t you just ignore the statement?

quote:

"You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you…"
--No, just alot to learn.

I do have a lot to learn. Perhaps you could enlighten me with your theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by TrueCreation, posted 03-21-2002 9:42 PM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 03-22-2002 11:40 AM quicksink has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 872 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 42 of 44 (7623)
03-22-2002 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by quicksink
03-22-2002 4:20 AM


quote:
Quicksink - "You really do think I am a stupid twelve year old, don’t you…"
Truecreation - --No, just alot to learn.

All of us have a lot to learn. Some of us have had more time for it.
One of you is more polished; one of you more fiery; but both about the same age, exceptionally young to be here, and that is delightful.

Stay Curious.

--------
Old Man


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by quicksink, posted 03-22-2002 4:20 AM quicksink has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by quicksink, posted 04-02-2002 5:02 AM doctrbill has responded

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (8090)
04-02-2002 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
03-22-2002 11:40 AM


Hi doctrbill! I'm back (ahhhh!!)

I realized that my knowledge of many subjects is truncated and thus I have difficulty participating in scientifically technical deabtes. Therefore, I have bought a "Handy Science Answer Book". What I have found is that this book, composed of data compiled by some of the more qualified in their fields, supports my presumption that animals adapted, or evolved for cold conditions. This data is supported by the fact that warm-weather creatures are found in the same locations in Antarctica, only warm-weather creatures are lower in the fossil strata. Rapid climate change, which is inadvertantly and irreveresibly suggested by the creationist model of continental drift, would not allow for such adaptation to occur.

So TC, I ask the question again- why do we not find only warm-weather species or cold-weather species in Antarctica.

See- I'm not an idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 03-22-2002 11:40 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by doctrbill, posted 10-17-2002 12:05 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 872 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 44 of 44 (20066)
10-17-2002 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by quicksink
04-02-2002 5:02 AM


Hey Quicksink,

Are you still visiting this forum?

Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I've been gone from here a long time and have discovered that I can check for replies to my posts. This is really cool.

Thanks Percy!

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by quicksink, posted 04-02-2002 5:02 AM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019