A simple question for a complex issue

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

Use HTML, which this board allows but few others do.e=mc{sup}2{/sup}, replacing { with < and } with >, is displayed as e=mc².

I posted late last night the post on tree ring chronology going back some 9000 years. On returning this lunchtime I have read the intervening posts. I am even more convinced of something I read on other threads in the last 3 weeks or so.'Whatever' is dicking with you guys. I am now completely convinced he not only isn't interested in learning anything here I don't think he is a Creationist.I can't be 100% sure on this but I think he is just playing games. He switches from a literal 6000 years ago creationist to a approx. 12000 year creationist to suit his needs. I have seen him use the 'yom' = 1000 years and 'yom' = 1 day at various times in various threads.Now he is either so dumb it is of unbelievable (almost) proportions or he is dicking you guys around.I really think it is the latter.

That's not an explanation. That's at best a hypothesis, not useful until supported by evidence. Exactly which rings does he think are multiples, and what characteristics of those rings leads him to pick them as multiples? What about the 4,950 year old bristlecone (Prometheus)? How do its rings compare with Methusaleh's (the 4,723 year old pine)?I notice you have ignored the 11,000 year old creosote bush; the 43,000 year old King's Holly in Tasmania; the 13,000 year old Box Hucklebery in Pennsylvania, and the 13,000 year old Mongarlowe Mallee in Australia.

You may be right; but IMHO dumber than a brick is very slightly more likely.

To help people provide UBB and HTML help to others without using stand-ins like "{" for characters like "[" (used by UBB codes) and "<" (used by HTML), here are the literals for some common UBB and HTML characters: So if you had typed this into the message box: It would have been displayed like this: --Percy

Thanks. I guarantee I have no chance of remembering that for any noticeable length of time. If it were on the UBB and HTM code help pages I might have a chance of finding it when I need it.

whatever, did you read anything that I wrote? Read slowly this time. Polonium halos do not support a young Earth. Bible or no Bible, nothing (as in not one single solitary thing, as in zero, as in nil, as in zilch, as in naught) about Polonium halos address anything about the age of the Earth. But they did refute it...they showed that Gentry was completely wrong. What are you trying to say here?And I'm a bit surprised you had nothing to say about the equation e=mc² as it relates to the age of the sun. (by the way...thanks JonF and Percy)

I think you will find that our friend Mr. whatever responds to very very few questions and challenges, does not change anything that he says as the result of discussion, repeatedly posts the same gobbledygook of an apparently random assemblage of scientific terms, and doesn't appear to understand anything that is written, be it by himself or others.If you are feeling masochistic, read http://EvC Forum: How, exactly, is dating done? -->EvC Forum: How, exactly, is dating done? and the following messages. Many of the phrases used in this thread show up there, and nobody could figure out what they meant in that thread either.

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]

Sorry, everyone, but this is getting to be so funny that I just have to get involved in this as well.whatever,Polonium halos do not show that the granite is only 6000 to 12000 years old. It doesn't."We all know" nothing of the kind. We have seen new chromosomes come into being. Please, you are writing nonsense.God has not place any barriers between micro and macro evolution. None. Creationists have claimed this, but have never shown what these barriers are.There are hundreds if not thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. They are there. They have been found. They have been studied and described.And, judging from the comments of professional geologists on this very board, you know nothing about pore porosity.Please, whatever, you are making statements that are simply false. I don't understand what you are doing. Are you deliberately lying? Or are you so ignorant of basic science that you truly cannot tell that you are making no sense whatsoever?

JonF:Thanks for the heads up and the link. (I did go there and read a bit, and all can say is...WTF! Good stuff...lol).I guess it is like beating your head against the wall, but he (whatever) is so full of feces that I hate to just let it go. I mean, read his next post. Giant insects? Does he not know anything about the physiologial constraints of an exoskeleton? No transitional fossils...Ha! Trying to separate microevolution from macroevolution, which are of course, purely creationists terms anyway. I just find it so hard to resist. But you are correct...it is futile.Thanks again.

Er, they're not purely creationist terms. From Darwin's Precursors and Influences: A glossary of historical terms in evolutionary theory:"Macroevolution
A term introduced by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937, referring to evolution at levels higher than the populational. His view was that evolutionary change at the level of speciation and above. Recently, the term has been used simply to refer to large scale change, mostly at the superspecies level, eg, by Niles Eldredge. ...Microevolution
A term referring to evolutionary changes beneath the level of the species. It includes, but is not limited to, adaptation to local environments. See also macroevolution."I can't resist posting Sverker Johansson's sig from talk.origins:"Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt."

{qsMicroevolution
A term referring to evolutionary changes beneath the level of the species. It includes, but is not limited to, adaptation to local environments. See also macroevolution."[/qs]So, since it is a bit of a cheat to redefine terms just to make your argument, it seems that the creationists have actually agreed that macroevolution occurs in that AIG says that new species and genera arose since the flood. There are, for someone as uniformed as whatever is, above the species level.

---

Common sense isn't