A simple question for a complex issue

SpinyNorman73,The evidence is that the sediments could of only been laid down suddenly, the granite rocks have been proven to be young, zircons have too much helium within their crystals to be old, the reason the dating methods seem to agree, is because all the sediments could only of been erupted out from the inner earth, meaning they would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, because of dual porosity, however, the granites were not erupted out from the inner earth, they are the basement rocks, and they date to be only around 6,000 years old.1: Ground-Water Hydrology, The link takes you through goggle to Ground-Water Hydrology, chapter 10, you need to go to page 12, where it explains dual porosity.tidal influence on micropore diffusion - Google Search2: The biblical fountains of the deep exists, the super deep well drilled over 7 miles into the earth are finding the fractured rock and water solutes, its confirmed there is fountains of the deep they have water solutes and are all broken up.Geophysics University of Bonn
Page not found | Geophysical Institute3: Its these solutes in the super deep well that are responsible for the sediments that erupted dating so old, (Hydroplate theory: Four Parts to Walts pictorial display of the hydroplate theory.
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html , its a scientific fact that solutes will equalize between the micropores and the macropores, the sediments that erupted out of the earth would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth.4: Zircons are conclusive evidence that granties are in fact young, approximately 6,000 years old, its shows the other dating methods are meaningless and that the fossils can only be young, its scientifically impossible for granites to have the amounts of helium if the earth was 1.5 billion years old, meaning the sediments had to of been laid down suddenly, preserving the fossil record.Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research5: Evolutionists can not explain the excess helium in the granites, the theory of evolution, should be replaced with Intelligent Design, The theory of evolution requires too much time, that is not evidenced in the age of the granites(helium in zircon crystals), which proves conclusively that the fossils are young, meaning the sediments that erupted out of the earth were contaminated by dual porosity by the solutes in the super deep wells, they would of dated old even before they even erupted out of the earth, when geologists say but the dating methods agree one to another, its really meaningless, the helium in the zircon crystals, prove conclusively that the granites which lie beneath the sediments are only around 6,000 years.[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

SpinyNorman73,Some testimonial evidences bearing witness to the age of the flood, the amount of fossils themselves bearing witness, Paleontological Testimony, Atlantisquest.com and Can the Redwoods date the Flood?, Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchP.S. Russel Humphrey is a nucleur physists, explains that zircons closure temperature is +196 degrees centigrade, and the retention temperature for the argon to stay diffused in the zircons for 1.5 billion years would of been a different temp -196 degrees centigrade, because everyone knows the granites in the earth is warm, the zircons can only be an open system, helium is diffusing at too fast a rate, they would be losing helium as fast as nucleur decay produced it, etc...

The pleistocene extinction has relevance to the dating of the biblical flood, however, were all aware of the problems with C-14 dating, these errors make the Pleistocene extinctions support the biblical flood. The Redwoods gives an approximate age of the flood, Dendrochronology (tree ring dating), etc...The Humphreys are not confused, I find that interesting, perhaps the geologist are the ones confused, you don't see other Nucleur physists disputing the Humphreys, in fact it was a non-creationist lab that did the analysis, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

Its a common fact that some trees lay down more than one tree ring per year, There are problems with C-14 dating, how else would they date fungus, you might be interested to check out Walt Browns site, Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood and type on Walts goggle search engine: How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?I find it interesting that Russell Humphreys has published articles in Scientific Journals, and speaks on radiometric dating.P.S. Russell Humphreys was confronted by a geologists, who was in error about closure temps, & retention temps, etc... What's the name, if any, nucleur physicists, that have confronted Russell Humphreys, etc...
News | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

NosyNed, It does appear that spring and fall rains would cause 2 or more seasonal growth rings, but agree in the tropics with no seasonal rainfall fluctuations, you wouldn't necessarily have any annual growth rings, etc...SpinyNorman73, Dr. Robert Gentry's is another nucleur physicist, he found polonium radioactive halo's in the granite crystals shows the entire granite basement rock's of the earth were formed instantly, these radioactive halo's shouldn't be within granites crystals, he used an analogy of Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water would disappear quickly unless the water was frozen instantly, these polonium atoms only exists for seconds before they disappear, because they exists as radioactive polonium halo's, within the granites support they were supernaturally created, etc...
Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

crashfrog, Gentry gave an analogy, think it was his special video on the granites, he used an analogy of basalt lava's not showing this phenomenom, because of the time it take for lava to cool, none of the other rocks on earth show this phenonmenom, if you melt granites it ceases to be granite, and don't believe its possible to form granites by any method known to man, they were supernaturally created.
P.S. Your ice bubbles, is likely air bubbles, air dissolves in water, etc...

NosyNed, Don Batten Ph D, he said some pines can have up to 5 growth rings per year, he explained this would bring the bristle cone pine, into the era of the biblical flood, etc... Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis

Eta_Carinae, Actually 9,000 years would be pretty close if the Creation week took 7,000 years, factoring from Adam to the biblical flood around 1,650 years, and 4,350 to bring us to the present, you have around 12,000 years from the point in time where God caused the sun to go nucleur kjv genesis 1:3-4, and 3 God days later, would be 9,000 years when God caused the trees to come forth from the earth kjv genesis 1:11, etc...
P.S. One day to God is as a thousand of our years kjv 2 peter 3:8 & One thousand years is but as a watch in the night kjv psalm 90:4

NosyNed, Don Batten explained the oldest bristlecone pine in 1957 dated to be 4,723 years by counting the tree rings, the difference in the 4,350 years the biblical flood is believed to because after the flood the earth was wetter, producing multiple tree rings, he agrees presently the bristlecone is only producing one annual tree ring per year, etc...

You have proof, clams are found on top of Mount Everest, even today these mountains are still rising, God created these bounds so the waters would not again cover the earth. kjv psalm 104:8-9, the bible says the waters only rose only 15 cubits above the highest mountain, so with the waters presently in the oceans you can calculate the height of the pre-flood mountains to be under 1/2 mile in height, etc...You have massive flood sediment evidence of erosion, the Hudson Canyon, The Amazon Canyon, the badlands, the grand canyon, clams on top of the mountains, however, you might want to check out Walt Browns site, he explains the mechanics of liquification, with the waters covering the entire earth, with a little shaking going on, underwater tides would of kept the sediments dispersed, causing them to stratify, the fossils would of floated into the sediments, Walt explains how this answers present fossil stratification layerings, are explained by liquification, etc... Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood On Walts personal goggle search engine type: Examples of LiquefactionYou actually have evidences of fossils floating and depositing, the massive coal deposits, show that massive mats of trees were deposited as the flood waters washed by the Rocky mountains, Appalachian mountains, etc...
BNSF 404 Page Not Found[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

MarkAustin, Where in the bible is the tigris river mentioned pre-flood, with mountains being present, there probably was rivers pre-flood, etc... kjv Genesis 7:20 actually says Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.I agree with you that the oceans sank and the mountains rose, but with this in context, that the oceans sank, there is enough water in the oceans themselves, if the earth was a smooth sphere to cover the earth over 1/2 mile in water, meaning the mountains were a whole lot lower in height pre-flood, meaning less than 1/2 mile of water covered the earth, etc...P.S. Its interesting how Ron Wyatt, found giant sea anchors in the mountains of Ararat, and because of fluid dynamics, would of made an arked boat float quite well within the waves, though because of the direction the earth rotated and where Mt.Ararat is located is was likely protected from the bulk of the outpressing waters, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

FliesOnly, I have no problem with the earth being 4.6 bilion years, however, the granites show evidence they were formed recently, their is really no concrete evidence that the sun has been shining over 12,000 years, or that the tree fossils are older than 9,000 years old, in light of the granites being formed recently, no matter what, all sediment ages are meaningless, because of dual porosity, if they came up out from the inner earth, etc...P.S. However, the granites show they were created recently, how does this not support the biblical creation week, happening only 12,000 years ago, if one day is as a thousand years too God, the granites show evidence they were supernaturally created, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

FliesOnly, I agree with you that the halo's infer the granites were formed suddenly, just that it supports the bible, in that its evidence that the granites were formed only 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, and this makes the sediments that formed that erupted out of the earth, to date old, etc...They would of dated old even before they erupted out of the earth, and by dual porosity diffusion, they contaminated the basalts that flowed out from the earth, etc....however, I don't feel one day is as 1/1000th of one of our days, its the other way around, etc...its clarified within God's Word where it says a night watch to God is a thousand years, and Peter talking to impatient people about the return of the Lord, where he said not to be ignorant that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years 2 peter 3:8-9, etc...kjv Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.kjv 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.kjv 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.The bible says the earth was formed, in the beginning(possibly 4.6 billion years ago), however, if one day is as a thousand years, and one night to God as a watch in the night, why should this be surprising, what the evolutionist have done is try to make the fossils appear to be as old as the age of the earth, geologists can melt most rocks and recreate by cooling, this is not so with granite, no method known to man can recreate granite, the reason the scientific community refuses to debate Gentry, its supernatural evidence, found in all granites, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]

MarkAustin, Here is a pictorial of the hydroplate theory, the waters fled by the mountains(the reason for coal mines on the east side of the rocky mountains)and(the west side of the appalatian mountains), when the fountains of the deep stopped erupting out of the earth, the ocean tecktonic plates pressed back down on the inner earth, and causing the inner earth to be pressed up against the crushed granites under the continental plates, this pressing down of the massive ocean tecktonic plates also caused the Mid-Ocean ridges to rise up out of the ocean floor, etc...http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Hydroplate1.html

FliesOnly, The polonium halo's show granite is a special creation, the excess helium, shows that this happened only 6,000 to 12,000 years, there likely is other radioactive elements in granite that suggests the granite existed before it was transformed into granite, but the problem is the helium levels show it was transformed into granite only 6,000 to 12,000 years, etc...We all know that Evolution has no proof for the origin of the species, and that God created the species male and female, if God wanted robots, we would of likely been created asexual, however he made us to be a sharing of genes, etc...There is no evidence that new genes/chromosomes are being created, one way or another they are all copies, double copies, mutated copies, but only copies, the evolutionists have no proof to support Darwins origin of the species, Natural selection, genetic drift, mutations are all forms of microevolution, not macroevolution, supporting not the theory of evolution but interestingly supports Intelligent Design, God placed constraints, so creatures can only microevolute within constraints, if it wasn't for these constraints to the size insects, the insects would of ruled the world, When God was done with his creation, he said it was good, and indeed it is, can you imagine if insects were the size of your car, etc...No transitional species are noted in the fossil record, nothing to show the creatures came out from type of cambrian soup, the fossil record concurs with the biblical record, the creatures came fully formed, no missing arms, all show they were designed, an little analogy is the wings of the creatures, the dragon fly wing, butterfly wing, bats wings, birds wings, all different in their design, and no evidence they evolved from some preexisting transitional creature, Its obvious as the nose on your face, that you were designed, just look in the mirror, for you were created in the image of God, etc...With the helium in the granites, proving the granites were formed before the sediment erupted out of the earth, meaning toe has not the time needed to evolve, not that it could of evolved given time, because all we see is loss of genetic information, not an increase in information, etc...P.S. If you want to understand what I'm saying about pore porosity, I left a link on my first response on this thread, and the one about the fountains of the deep, solutes and fractured rocks found in super deep well, drilled over 7 miles into the mantle, etc...The sediments that erupted out of the earth were old even before they erupted out from the earth, making the different dating methods meaningless, the fossils are young, etc...e=mc2 Now doesn't this mean mass the speed of light square, or some such thing, thought some Russian scientists showed the harmonic of the sun showed its harmonic vibrations showed the sun is very young, however, because the sun is producing light by nucleur means, too me, means that the light particles are leaving, leaving the heavy particles behind, so if the sun is showing core harmonic vibrations of a very harmonious core, it would suggest its very young, etc...I never read the string on this site about the sun, but because the sun is producing energy by nucleur means, its probably hard to prove how young or old the sun is, meaning, the sun could well be very young, and only 12,000 years old, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-19-2004]