Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 900 of 991 (709285)
10-24-2013 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by mindspawn
10-24-2013 4:20 AM


Re: Paleogeography of North America
mindspawn writes:
To support your maps, could you please present me with a location that shows no possible signs of flooding around the PT boundary
Sure. I provided those. In the Karoo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2013 4:20 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 938 of 991 (709526)
10-28-2013 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 937 by mindspawn
10-28-2013 5:52 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
minspawn writes:
minspwan writes:
These slow rates are applied to rocks that have very little parent isotope left in them, its assumed the decay from parent to daughter occurred at the same rates as today.
Nope. It's not an assumption. At all.
It's a conclusion based on what we know about physics and more particlularly the different methods of radiocative decay. It seem as if mindspawen doesn't know the difference between the words 'assumption' and 'conclusion'. They're not the same.
Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 937 by mindspawn, posted 10-28-2013 5:52 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024