Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 481 of 1163 (787796)
07-21-2016 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by Faith
07-21-2016 9:15 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?
The bits of it that were sediment became sedimentary rock.
And if so how did that happen?
It got gradually covered over with more sediment and underwent compaction, compression, and heating.
And no dinosaurs survived?
Yes they did.
Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
They went on living on top of the new sediment. It's not like all the overlying sediment suddenly dropped out of the sky one day. (OK, except volcanic ash, which does fall from the sky and which might kill off the fauna in a given area, which would then be recolonized from adjacent areas.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 9:15 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 1:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 482 of 1163 (787800)
07-22-2016 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2016 10:34 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
They went on living on top of the new sediment. It's not like all the overlying sediment suddenly dropped out of the sky one day.
I see that Faith is proposing a thread to discuss this subject. In her OP she shows a cartoon of some 'strata' dropping onto a brontosaurus. This is extremely reminiscent of times Faith has tried to tell us that Darwin's theory does not include variation; just selection.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 2:57 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 483 of 1163 (787802)
07-22-2016 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by NoNukes
07-22-2016 1:06 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I see that Faith is proposing a thread to discuss this subject. In her OP she shows a cartoon of some 'strata' dropping onto a brontosaurus.
I wonder if this is how others see that cartoon or this is just your usual odd way of construing things I post. I intended it to be a brontosaurus in its own "time period" poking its head out from between the strata, unhappy because there is nothing to sustain life in the strata. But perhaps the drawing is ambiguous.
This is extremely reminiscent of times Faith has tried to tell us that Darwin's theory does not include variation; just selection.
Certainly a very odd one here. You seem to have turned the idea that mutation is not the source of variation into no variation at all, which is a total misrepresentation of my argument.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 1:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 3:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 487 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 4:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 484 of 1163 (787803)
07-22-2016 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Faith
07-21-2016 9:15 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
quote:
Even if the sediments are stream sediments there is still the problem that sedimentary rock covers all the territory where supposedly there was a landscape with all the necessities to sustain the life of the dinosaur before it got buried in the stream sediments which became the slab of rock that covers all that territory. You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?
This is a very odd question, if a bone is found in lithified sediment then surely the sediment beneath it would also be lithified. How could it be any other way ? So, as far as the locations where the fossils are found, the answer is yes. In other places the landscape would have been eroded away, just as erosion happens today. There is absolutely nothing odd about any of this.
quote:
And if so how did that happen? And no dinosaurs survived? But wasn't that due to the meteor? And what about all the other living things? Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
This is just more bizarre assumptions on your part. Why assume that massive amounts of sediment suddenly got dumped on the environment rather than it slowly accumulating over time ? The way sediment accumulates in modern environments.
Really the whole argument is just a ridiculous strawman. At least try to find out what the mainstream view actually claims rather than making things up,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 9:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 485 of 1163 (787804)
07-22-2016 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
07-22-2016 2:57 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
You seem to have turned the idea that mutation is not the source of variation into no variation at all
No. I am referring to your insistence that Darwin's Origin of Species described the formation of species by selection without requiring a source of variation for selection to operate on despite being offered numerous quotes from the text of Origin of Species.
Faith writes:
That was Darwin's whole theory -- selection is what powers evolution. If new variations are incorporated into the population that's not evolution.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 2:57 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 4:09 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 486 of 1163 (787805)
07-22-2016 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by NoNukes
07-22-2016 3:32 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I got convinced in that discussion that Darwin did spend time on the question of the source of variation. However my main interest was in his use of the idea of natural selection as the power mechanism of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 3:32 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by NoNukes, posted 07-22-2016 4:50 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 487 of 1163 (787806)
07-22-2016 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
07-22-2016 2:57 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I intended it to be a brontosaurus in its own "time period" poking its head out from between the strata, unhappy because there is nothing to sustain life in the strata.
Well, quite. A brontosaurus can't live underground any more than you can. Especially since (obviously) the brontosaurus would have to die before being buried.
And your point is ... ?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 2:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 488 of 1163 (787808)
07-22-2016 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Faith
07-22-2016 4:09 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
I got convinced in that discussion that Darwin did spend time on the question of the source of variation.
Yes, but without dropping the following conclusion:
Faith writes:
If new variations are incorporated into the population that's not evolution.
I'll leave off pointing out what you are ignoring here until we see if your new thread gets started.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 4:09 AM Faith has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 489 of 1163 (787811)
07-22-2016 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Faith
07-21-2016 9:15 PM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
While a lot of this discussion seems to be a bit off topic, I think some of it is important because what Faith is saying is that the fossil record is irrelevant for, supposedly, geological reasons. I believe that she is saying the entire geological record was deposited in one swell foop, and that the fossil arrangement is accidental, and also irrelevant because it all happened in a one year time frame.
The possibility of erosion within that time frame attacks her concept of a concentrated geological record. Hence, we have a discussion of landscapes and streams.
Faith says:
Well we could argue about that but it's really irrelevant in the current context.
As I said, the details of the fossil record are irrelevant to Faith.
Even if the sediments are stream sediments there is still the problem that sedimentary rock covers all the territory where supposedly there was a landscape with all the necessities to sustain the life of the dinosaur before it got buried in the stream sediments which became the slab of rock that covers all that territory.
Hard to make sense of this, but it seems that Faith is equating terrestrial deposits and their fossils to the extensive marine strata that we all think of in layer-cake geology.
What Faith does not seem to understand is that landscapes are subaerial, allowing land animals and plants to exist. Because of transgressions and temporary dams, etc., a largely erosional landscape can become depositional. Furthermore, this can happen repeatedly resulting in 'cyclothems' present in a lot of coal fields. A major point is that terrestrial deposits do not have the lateral continuity of marine sediments being deposited according to Walther's Law. Sediments are deposited in smaller basins than the ocean, but they do occur as alluvial fans, lakes and river sediments, as well as in volcanic deposits of various kinds.
While marine deposits are different, Faith neglects that there are trace fossils within those extensive marine sheets that are hard to explain by transport from another location and time. For instance, I showed a set of Cambrian trilobite tracks in a siltstone in an earlier post. My question would be: "How does your flood transport tracks and deposit them in a different location and layer where trilobites supposedly could not live?"
You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?
A landscape cannot become a rock. But it can be buried by sediments, resulting in a fossil landscape.
And if so how did that happen?
It happens when an area becomes inundated by water, wind-blown silt or sand, a debris flow or one of several volcanic materials. This process occurs repeatedly in the geological record.
And no dinosaurs survived? But wasn't that due to the meteor?
I have no idea why you bring this up now. What do you mean?
And what about all the other living things? Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
Well, if they didn't get eroded or destroyed first (since they lived on a landscape), they were incorporated into the sediment, an example would be coal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Faith, posted 07-21-2016 9:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 07-22-2016 1:23 PM edge has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 490 of 1163 (787813)
07-22-2016 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICANT
07-21-2016 3:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:
But wouldn't that require the earth to have been much smaller in diameter in the past than it is now?
No. Of course not. Where would the extra material have come from?
There's erosion happening at some places - e.g. mountaintops - and deposition happening at other places - e.g. valleys - at the same time. The mountains are flattened, the valleys are filled and - also at the same time - tectonic forces are building new mountains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2016 3:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 491 of 1163 (787818)
07-22-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by edge
07-21-2016 12:45 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
Hi edge
edge writes:
Sure. Happens all the time. They are called marine transgressions and there are hundreds of them in the geological record. In fact, we may be seeing it going on right now. It does not mean that there is a flood of biblical dimensions.
Are you referring to the flood recorded in Genesis or the one that is argued by YEC'S that came from the imagination of Ellen G. White?
The flood described in Genesis is not the flood that has been argued in all the flood threads on this web site.
edge writes:
Then you understand that millions of years is a long time.
Actually I understand that a million years the way we count years is not even a drop in the bucket of the duration of eternity.
Duration is eternal. Millions of years are only a measurement of distance between events in duration. That measurement is determined by the motion of the earth in relation to the sun as was decreed in Genesis chapter one.
edge writes:
The short story: Tectonism and subsidence. Right now the floor of the Gulf of Mexico is subsiding. Just look at the issues with NOLA. And no, George Bush is not pushing the crust down.
I would agree that George Bush does not weigh enough to produce well over 22,000 psi in order to compact an area that has over 22,000 psi of upward pressure.
As to the moving of the plates and one plate diving under another plate, in subduction zones effect's would only appear in subduction zones.
Or am I missing something there?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by edge, posted 07-21-2016 12:45 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:36 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 492 of 1163 (787827)
07-22-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by ringo
07-22-2016 11:43 AM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
No. Of course not. Where would the extra material have come from?
Where did the original material come from?
How did it get to where it is?
How long did it take for the material to gather and form the earth?
I would assume that any materials that can be found on and in the earth came from the same place.
ringo writes:
There's erosion happening at some places - e.g. mountaintops - and deposition happening at other places - e.g. valleys - at the same time. The mountains are flattened, the valleys are filled and - also at the same time - tectonic forces are building new mountains.
Erosion produces the type of material that is found in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of the Mississippi river extending out into the Gulf.
Such a slow production of material would make it hard for fossils to be formed and preserved.
Or am I not understanding the process?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by ringo, posted 07-22-2016 11:43 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by ringo, posted 07-22-2016 1:14 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 498 by JonF, posted 07-22-2016 2:01 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 493 of 1163 (787830)
07-22-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by ICANT
07-22-2016 1:05 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
ICANT writes:
Where did the original material come from?
That's irrelevant to your question. The fact is that there is a certain amount of material and it keeps moving around. That accounts for the layers and the fossils in them.
ICANT writes:
How long did it take for the material to gather and form the earth?
The original formation of the earth is not the topic.
ICANT writes:
Such a slow production of material would make it hard for fossils to be formed and preserved.
It's always hard for fossils to be formed and preserved. That's why billions of organisms only make thousands of fossils.
Are you suggesting that most of the fossils were formed quickly by the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2016 1:31 PM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 494 of 1163 (787831)
07-22-2016 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2016 3:34 PM


Re: So, oh well, we're still off topic.
Hi Dr
Dr writes:
I found an article that stated there was twenty-four distinct species of plankton microfossils found at 6.7 kilometers below the surface.
Don't plankton live near the surface of water where there is sufficient light to support photosynthesis?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2016 3:34 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by JonF, posted 07-22-2016 2:03 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 495 of 1163 (787832)
07-22-2016 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by edge
07-22-2016 10:47 AM


Re: From rock slabs to epeiric seas, there's no room for living things
While a lot of this discussion seems to be a bit off topic, I think some of it is important because what Faith is saying is that the fossil record is irrelevant for, supposedly, geological reasons. I believe that she is saying the entire geological record was deposited in one swell foop, and that the fossil arrangement is accidental, and also irrelevant because it all happened in a one year time frame.
That isn't my argument at the moment, although it represents my viewpoint, yes. But at the moment I'm focused on the strata of the Geo Column each as forming the surface of the earth in its own time period, and since their fossil contents are supposed to have lived in that time period on the very site where they are buried, a whole landscape, or ecology perhaps, is supposed to have existed on that spot and yet all that actually exists on that spot is the sedimentary layer itself. You have to imagine there having been a landscape there originally in which the fossil creatures lived, but that requires imagining a very complex scenario in which such a landscape ends up as a sedimentary rock, EVERY landscape of EVERY time period ends up as a sedimentary rock. This isn't particularly a problem for marine creatures since their habitat is in the water and doesn't form a landscape on the surface, but when we get to the terrestrial creatures their supposed environment becomes something more akin to the surface of the earth we are living on. For every sedimentary deposit that contains terrestrial fossils we have to conjure this supposed environment and then suppose it was eventually all reduced to a flat sedimentary rock. The rocks as observed in the strata, where they haven't been tectonically deformed, are pretty flat, often with pretty tight contacts between them, and yet we are to imagine that there was once a whole landscape on their surface somewhat like the landscape on the surface now? And that makes sense to you? That makes sense to Geologists?
The possibility of erosion within that time frame attacks her concept of a concentrated geological record. Hence, we have a discussion of landscapes and streams.
You keep saying erosion is a problem for me and I don't get what you mean. For my "concept of a concentrated geological record?" You mean for my concept of rapid deposition? Exactly what erosion is a problem for that? I look at strata in hundreds of pictures from all over the world and I don't see any problem. Sometimes there is some loose gravel or rubble between strata. Is that what you mean by erosion? How would it be a problem if it is? There are lots of ways such loose rubble could occur. But I may not be getting what you have in mind.
"Landscapes and streams" is simply what is suggested by the idea of the surface of the strata having once been the surface of the earth which could support living things as represented by the fossils within the layer. What erosion has to do with this escapes me completely. It seems to be what is implied by the whole Geologic Timescale.
edge writes:
Faith writes:
Well we could argue about that but it's really irrelevant in the current context.
As I said, the details of the fossil record are irrelevant to Faith.
Didn't I say that in regard to the water channels cut in the layers you posted? It's irrelevant to the question of how a whole landscape -- or perhaps ecology is more accurate -- could have formed on the surface of any given buried layer. How is that about the relevance or irrelevance of the fossil record?
Even if the sediments are stream sediments there is still the problem that sedimentary rock covers all the territory where supposedly there was a landscape with all the necessities to sustain the life of the dinosaur before it got buried in the stream sediments which became the slab of rock that covers all that territory.
Hard to make sense of this, but it seems that Faith is equating terrestrial deposits and their fossils to the extensive marine strata that we all think of in layer-cake geology.
Well, we are still not communicating. I really don't know what you are saying. I'm trying to keep the focus on the strata, and the strata aren't limited to marine strata, they include terrestrial deposits as well.
Such as those in the Grand Staircase where there are huge numbers of fossilized dinosaurs:
And it's the terrestrial strata that inspire the landscapes in which the fossilized creatures supposedly once roamed, which I'm saying could never have existed, because all that ever existed for all those "time periods" represented by all those strata, is the strata themselves, with their fossilized contents.
What Faith does not seem to understand is that landscapes are subaerial, allowing land animals and plants to exist.
How could I fail to understand that? It's at the very heart of what I'm talking about. Since all there is and ever was in the locations of the strata is the strata themselves, the sedimentary rocks of the geo column, there were never any landscapes, meaning subaerial environments in which living things could exist. Seems to me I keep saying this over and over and yet you think I fail to grasp it?
Because of transgressions and temporary dams, etc., a largely erosional landscape can become depositional. Furthermore, this can happen repeatedly resulting in 'cyclothems' present in a lot of coal fields. A major point is that terrestrial deposits do not have the lateral continuity of marine sediments being deposited according to Walther's Law. Sediments are deposited in smaller basins than the ocean, but they do occur as alluvial fans, lakes and river sediments, as well as in volcanic deposits of various kinds.
I've read up on the strata in the Grand Staircase illustrated above, which are terrestrial strata containing enormous numbers of fossils, including huge numbers of dinosaurs in the Mesozoic layers, and found that some of them cover five or six states; one of the formations is considered by some to cover as many as a dozen states. How these deposits could be thought of as confined to alluvial fans or lake and river sediments, is a puzzle to put it mildly.
While marine deposits are different, Faith neglects that there are trace fossils within those extensive marine sheets that are hard to explain by transport from another location and time. For instance, I showed a set of Cambrian trilobite tracks in a siltstone in an earlier post. My question would be: "How does your flood transport tracks and deposit them in a different location and layer where trilobites supposedly could not live?"
There are lots of questions about how the FLood could have done this or that, but at the moment the subject is how OE theory invents landscapes that couldn't possibly exist, so that the strata is all there is, rocks with dead things in them, period. I don't think there's any other possibility than the Flood to explain this if the Geo Column/Timetable is overthrown, but maybe you can think of one?
I saw the trilobite picture but didn't read the post yet. How about the possibility that the trilobite survived the Flood long enough to make tracks in the latest deposit of sediment before being buried by the sediments carried in the next wave? Or something like that.
You still have to explain how this could be the case. Was the landscape there at one time but it all became sedimentary rock?
A landscape cannot become a rock. But it can be buried by sediments, resulting in a fossil landscape.
I have NO idea what a "fossil landscape" could possibly be. but this scenario seems reasonable to you? Era after era landscapes form and get buried by sediments? Which harden into rock with flat surfaces on top of which eventually another landscape forms and gets buried and so on and so forth? This IS what Geology seems to be saying, which is such a monumental absurdity it is extremely hard to account for how you all fail to see it.
And if so how did that happen?
It happens when an area becomes inundated by water, wind-blown silt or sand, a debris flow or one of several volcanic materials. This process occurs repeatedly in the geological record.
Oy. Interpretive madness it seems to me. You're talking about ROCKS here, that you are calling the "geological record" in which you supposedly can see all those events with water and silt and debris? Oy.
And no dinosaurs survived? But wasn't that due to the meteor?
I have no idea why you bring this up now. What do you mean?
It was just a quip about how the dinosaurs couldn't have been killed by being buried by sediment or whatever we were talking about, because supposedly they were killed by the K-T meteor. Just an aside.
And what about all the other living things? Where did they go when their environment got squashed under all that sediment?
Well, if they didn't get eroded or destroyed first (since they lived on a landscape), they were incorporated into the sediment, an example would be coal.
I really find it very hard to believe that a normal intelligent person could believe such stuff, that anything like the surface of the earth we are living on today could end up as a slab of rock.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 10:47 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2016 2:00 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 501 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 503 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:43 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 504 by edge, posted 07-22-2016 2:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 505 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 4:54 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 506 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2016 5:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 512 by Pollux, posted 07-24-2016 2:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024