|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The world and evironment 5767 years ago. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Quote:
". . .around 6500 to 6000 years ago." Is that dating by the 'intelligant guess' of the strata layers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"Trilobites. Dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx." Pretty much what you said, anything found in any strata layer. It's pretty much self-explanatory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"And your evidence for that is?" And you evidence for 6500-6000 years ago is...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"...by 4000 BCE, about 6000 years ago..." Again, is your assumption of time based on the srata layers?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"NONE of these are found in all strata..." Well, this is kind of off-topic, but evolutionISTS take that simple organisms are on bottom and complex on top as 'oh, they must have evolved', but think of this: What is more likely to climb to a high spot to evade a giant flood, a snail, or a fox?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"What makes you think strata are guesses?" Well, if the strata were laid down quickly (which has some solid evidence*) during the Flood, then the dating is off and what you think to be even 'millions and millions of years' ago could be, simply, a few thousand (ten at most, which also has strong supporting evidence**) *The layers are parallel, where if they were formed over 'millions of years', erosion would have made their edges crazy and non-parallel. **To be explained later
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Ah, yesterday. I seem to actually remember yesterday being Thursday, December 27, 2007, not 5,000 years ago. That's not even yester-millenium. Sorry.
And, if the world is only 10,000 years old, then things that happened 5,000 years ago would be very acient history, and 20-30,000 years ago would be (get this) NOTHING!!!, because I believe that not even the universe was around 20,000 years ago. Which makes me think. I went to the Grand Teton National Park earlier this year, and the woman said that those were the worlds youngest mountains, at 13 million years old. Isn't that odd that the youngest mountains are 1,300 times older than the earth itself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"There is no evidence of a world-wide flood, ever. Period." Okay. First, how in the world (literally) could the theory of a worldwide flood (with only one family surviving by the gods (or God) telling them to build a boat) spread from China to Mesopotamia to North America during the early days? They hardly had boats, let alone the ability to cross such wide distances as the Atlantic ocean, where there is no 'Bering Strait' to cross by. Even if they did, there would be no way to communicate their ideas between the differant languages. This implies that the source had to be true. Second, the sedimentary layers. They're too uniform, like I've said before. If they were old, one would find erosion, like you see on the earth today. Was there no rain or rivers or wind to erode these layers? If not, could life have existed to fill these layers with fossils? Or, were they laied down quickly under water? Again, a flood. Third, coal in Antarctica. Sure, Antarctica might have been tropical millions of years ago, but when the coal was supposedly being formed (like, growing, dying, getting buried, etc.), Antarctica was (at the present rate of drifting) in the arctic! No plants could have formed coal. Therefore, they must have been carried from more temperate regions, and because wind can't lift trees or plants to transport them thousands or even hundreds of miles, water had to do it while covering the entire earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"This thread is about the world and environment 5767 years ago" Yes, I totally agree with you. If you'll follow the train of thought between me and (I think it was jar), you'll see that I was disproving his dates of 6,000 years and 30,000 years by attacking his/her presumed dating tecnique. Therefore, my argument was in context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
"Take such nonsense to some flood thread." Please, I'd like to hear how my three arguments are 'nonesense'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Are you too afraid to answer me? It seems that now that I've been having some good arguments, people have been pushing me to differant threads. Jar, are you afraid that I might actually be making sense and supporting what you don't believe with some evidence that makes quite a bit of sense? Is that why you don't reply? Hmmm?
By the way, I've remembered some for the '**To be explained later'.1. If oil is trapped in porous rock, then it seems that by the great pressure of the oil, some of it would have escaped into other regions, lowering the pressure. But this pressure is high, indicating that the oils were trapped quickly and have not had time to de-pressurize. 2. Small, icy comets are streaking through the earth's atmosphere at around two per second. By the average size of these, they should add 5 million gallons per comet. At that rate, the oceans would be much fuller than they are now, even at a fraction of the earth's suspected age. However, the later you go, the more comets and asteroids there would be from leftovers of the solar system's creation, so the rate would be even higher.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
If they've been PRATT'd, then they should be easy for you to 'refute' again. So try me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Read what I wrote to jar. Ever since I came here, all of my arguments have been PRATTed, but none have actually told me any counter-evidence. So, if they've been PRATTed, then it should be common knowledge and easy for you to 'vomit' it back up to me so I can know how they've been PRATTed. But since nobody does, I feel that 'PRATT' has been a term for 'This is a good support to his ideas, but I don't want to deal with them so maybe this will make him go away'. Please, give me counter-evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
If you'll notice in the second one, they say that there are more myths about snakes than about floods, but that doesn't mean that there was a huge snake encircling the earth. Well, I'm ninety-nine percent sure that none of those myths relate to a giant snake encircling the earth, whereas the flood stories do. And, maybe yes, the Chinese version may have been brought by Americans, but who told the original Native Americans living in the North West before the white men came?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Aquilegia753 Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 113 Joined: |
Quote
"So far all you have presented are PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times)." Is this a PRATT? There are no two- three- or four-, five-, six-, etc.-celled organisms. It seems that there should be these in abundance, as transitional forms between single-celled and multi-celled organisms (multi-celled being things like plankton, algae, fungi, etc.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024