human population growth - Page 5

Hexe wrote: as far as I'm concerned, the evidence supports evolution as being a FACT


I would have to disagree with you, but since I am not very busy now and have some free time I simply wanted to speak my mind here. And here how I would start……I would say without question all species of life have been here the same length of time 6 – 7 thousand years and with man. All animals were created at the same time. And about 95 percent of animals that have lived are now extinct. We have seen tremendous amount extinction, yet no knew kinds of animals have ever come on scene; we have new varieties but that just variation that is not evolution. The only examples evolutionists will point too as the evidence for evolution is examples of variation. Taking two dogs and developing varieties of dogs. And you can do that - there is no question, variety of cows, corns and etc….You can crossbreed dogs for the next 20 million years and you will always get dogs - you will never get elephants, tomatoes or bananas, you will always get the same kind of animal or generally same types. There are trillions of fossils available to study and yet no intermediate fossils from one kind to another, so it’s not that….to me that is a perfect proof of great catastrophe the world wide flood, the top three thousand feet of Mt Everest, from twenty six thousand to twenty nine thousand is all cemetery rock containing millions seashells and water blowing creatures. So the earth definitely was, no questions, the world wide flood explains fossils, why are there so many of them, so the creationist explanation of fossils is very simple, I agree there have to be preserve in the absence of oxygen and the world wide flood burying them in hundreds of thousand feet sediment would quickly cause the formation fossils. So the world wide flood would cause all the fossils and it’s not that there are not enough fossils to study, there are trillions fossils but there aren’t any intermediate fossils to study because they bring forth after their kind exactly like the Bible says, there has been no evolution in the sense of changing from one kind of animal to another, dinosaurs are always lived with man, man is responsible for killing them off, that is all the legends of killing the dragons come from, dinosaurs had been hunted to the point of extinction. One last thing; you are more than welcome to believe in evolution and you can say as much as you want evolution is true, but to me you are simply stating your religion, that is all. And here is my point??? I am strong opinion that the modern science has a long history, and I love science, don’t misunderstand this, but science has a long history of being wrong, seriously wrong an important issues, first example; “Columbus proved the world was round”, also for years they taught if you are sick is because you had a bad blood and they drain your blood out or drain some blood out to help to get well, that’s how 1799 George Washington was killed. For years they taught that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, matter of fact that was taught for two thousands years until Galileo proof that was wrong with his testing. Today science is wrong I think rather an important issues, number one they are wrong about the age of the earth…Really the issue of creation vs. evolution can be settle pretty quickly, if you can proof the earth is young. And the modern philosophy and I prefer to call it a religion; the modern religion of evolution is based on assumption that the world is billions of years old….If the world is not billions of years old then the arguments is over, it had to be created, period. But in fact there is evidence that the earth is young. There are hundreds examples but I will give few; the sun is shrinking 5 feet every hour on the average right now, if it were millions of years old, only twenty million years ago sun would have been so large it would touched the earth’s orbit, it cannot be billions of years old because of shrinking sun. Evolutionists will categorically ignore any evidence that teaches that the earth is young because they are so desperately need millions or billions of years to make their theory look reasonable. There is a lot of evidence; the dust layer on the moon was predicted to be 182 feet thick because they knew it got about inch thick every ten thousand years and yet when they landed on it, it was only ¾ inch thick, indicating 6 – 7 thousand of dust culmination. Another example the spin of the earth is slowing down; we have to add a thousand of the second every day because of the slowing speed rate of the earth - that would mean less than million years ago it would be going so fast that it would be like Jupiter causing constant hurricanes on the surface of the earth. And these are things that man cannot do anything about it, we cannot control the spin of the earth or the shrinking sun or Jupiter is losing heat and Jupiter moon io is extremely volcanic and yet it is extremely small, it should have lost all of its heat and been ice-cold millions of years ago but any evidence that solar system is young is categorically rejected by those who believe in evolution. And I am firm opinion that people choose evolution because of their training. And another thing I would like to point out that the earth is not millions of years old, Carbon 14 dating and those kinds of things it is a bit technical and I won’t get in with that with you. But the guy who invented the carbon dating said it’s only accurate for 2-3 thousand years and he said it should be equilibrate in less than thirty thousand years in atmosphere and it’s still not equilibrate right now, it’s only 1/3^rd the way to equilibrate, there for the atmosphere has to be less than 10,000 years old, but these kind of information, it’s called anomaly and you hear people who believe in evolution talk about things well that just anomaly we don’t have a way to explain that, but that does not mean we need to throw out the theory and I say yes people need to throw out the theory, evolution has been falsified in the minds of many. And I don’t want to get into argument with you, you stated that evolution is a FACT and I stated it is NOT.  Now I think I am done here……lol


Shtal.

A-n-d... right on cue he is back, with a change of subject.  Yeah Shtal
let's get back to evolution, it obviously feels safer for you than doing sums.

If maths is difficult, try a little geology.  Five minutes with a textbook that
explains how different layers of rock and soil get laid down over time should
surely spell out for you why what you, and your heroes, say about the fossil
record is completely untrue and illogical.

Your lot moan on about the lack of 'missing links' - but then as soon as a "knew"
(sic) animal is discovered and linked to developments in similar animals before
and since, you start shouting 'Oh well they are all related species, so that proves
nothing'.  What about fish, Shtal ?  NEW species are being discovered all the time
as we get more able to explore the seas' depths;  you cannot say a fish that was
entirely cartiligenous is 'the SAME' as one containing actual bones ...

'Ignorance may be bliss' for you, but one day you WILL have to "wake up & smell
the coffee."

He went right over the top again........
I bet he worked on that for hours, maybe days.....but it's the same as last time, almost word for word.

And now he can see it on a wide screen TV !!!!!


 

Hundmutter, I truly wish you Merry Christmas and Happy new year!!!!


If maths is difficult, try a little geology.  Five minutes with a textbook that
explains how different layers of rock and soil get laid down over time should
surely spell out for you why what you, and your heroes, say about the fossil
record is completely untrue and illogical

It is really easy to refute the dating tactic in millions, billions of years old, in which you believe that earth is old based on radiometric dating. And I need to point out the great ages for the earth was establish long before any of radiometric dating methods were invented. Before any of radiocarbon dating, potassium argon, uranium-lead, before anybody thought of those, they had already agreed that earth was billions of years old.  Look up anybody in 18-century, any of the old text books. The dating method is based on geologic column. If I brought a fossil to any university and said I would like to date this for me??? There first question would be where did you find it??? Because they wanted establish approximate range based on geologic column, then they will break up sample and they will test it for either uranium, potassium lead or wherever….Radio metric element they are looking for, in which decay method they are using depending on the approximate age. When they went to the moon they brought back lunar soil they tested eight different ways, science magazine 1970, they obtain eight different ages all the way to two billion to eighteen billion, so they decided that none of them accurate they threw them all out and picked the number out of clear blue sky and said that moon is 4.6 billion to match the age of the earth. And they threw those dates out because it didn’t match their prediction and expectation, but it illustrates the point that radiometric dating is only used to try to further bolster the geologic column dates.

Edit: This link in regards carbon dating will refresh your memory: http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=755239-for-my-brother-from-a-different-mother

Now I am going to have myself a nice Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shtal.
 

Shtal, never mind about carbon dating, you fool.  Explain how one layer of rock
gets to be laid down underneath a different layer of material, and then topped
off with yet another, and repeated over and again, over the centuries, when there
are far more layers than the 6,000 years you are selling would support.

Calling me a fool is simply tells me how your imperfection speaks, but anyway are you talking about annual rings??? if so, you simply don’t know about law squadron, I will give you a good story with my research as an example: In World War 2, some airplane run out of gas and landed in Greenland in 1942 and airplane was left there in 1942, they went a fought the war and apparently everybody forgot about them, until rich millionaire from Kentucky got brilliant idea!....Go find those airplanes, and bring them home, he went there looking for airplanes, they had to use ground penetrating radar to penetrate the ice, and they located the planes…They melted hole to get down to Airplane P-38, it was 263 feet below the surface, they melted this hole down to get to the plane and they took the plane apart and brought pieces back up through the hole and then put it back together in Middlesboro Kentucky. Well the plane was in the ice for 48 years and it were 263 feet down, that is 5.5 feet a year. (1942 – 1990 = 48 years) Now the deepest hole that was ever drilled was 10,000 feet and divide(s) that by 5.5 feet = 1,824 years.  I know deeper layers get squash called glacier ferment, so really 4 thousand years is plenty of time put all the ice in the north and south poll, so 4,400 years to accumulate the ice at the poles is no problem. So why isn’t there more ice in south and north poles???....Interesting….Now the guy who dig-out the airplane his name Bob Cardin, he said when he went down to get to that airplane, he said he went through ice-rings many hundreds of them. My question: now wait a minute how can there be hundreds of ice rings in 48 years??? Shouldn’t there be somewhere around 48??? But really who would think they are annual layers??? That doesn’t represent summer-winter, summer-winter, summer-winter; it represents warm-cold, warm-cold, warm-cold. You can get 5 of those in one week in some places. But there are still article calls these ice core lines annual layers when they are really from warm and cold spells. (Scientific American Feb. 1998 p.82) It is either they are ignorant or lying, I hope it is just ignorant because ignorance can be fixed, you see stupid is forever but ignorant(s) can be fix that is the different(s) by the way. In some places you can get 15 layers of show on your car in just 8 hours – NOT 15 inches, 15 distinct layers of snow. In school they teach each of the layers of the earth is a different age…You got Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Archeozoic. Do you know that the whole geologic column is a baloney lol…..It doesn’t exist. One last thing, I hope that is what you were asking me unless I misunderstood your question correctly.........
 

Hundmutter,

Here is little history about millions of year’s topic: Charles Lyell in 1830 wrote the book called Principles of Geology, he hated the Bible. Lyell said his goal was to “free the science from Moses” what does suppose he meant by that??? Well before Charles Lyell wrote his book everybody looked at geology and looked at Grand Canyon and said wow look what flood did, he didn’t like people interpreting earth history in the light of the Bible, he wanted them to interpret earth history in terms of millions of years. Lyell is the primary guy who is responsible of inventing, knowing today as Geologic Column. They divided earth into layers and gave them names; Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Archeozoic and all the kind of stuff…..Many people saw the movie Jurassic Park, named after Jurassic layer. Each layer of rock was given a name and the age and the index fossil. But keep in mind all of these done in 1830 before there ever was carbon dating, potassium organ dating, uranium 235/238, and etc…..none of those have ever been thought, so they didn’t determine these great ages by any radiometric decay method, they just picked the numbers out of clear blue sky. It is a fact that earth has many layers of cemetery rock, that is just a simply fact. Evolutionists interpretation says the layers form slowly over millions of years but creationist say no the layers are from the flood of Noah. You see Geologic column is actually a bible for evolutionist, the only place you will ever find it, is in the text books, but in the real world it doesn’t exists, “there is no Geologic column” actually all of the evolution is based on this lie right here. It is true that earth has layers; that is not the question, but how do they get there though I mean like Grand Canyon??? I mean if that layer set there for 10 million of years, waiting for the next one, don’t you think it is going to rain once in a while in 10 million years, if the layers are different ages why are there no erosion marks between the layers??? Why are they stacked up on each other just like the stack of pancakes? (Just look at Grand Canyon) If the layers are different age, why are there no soil layers between the rock layers? I mean soil build on top of rock….Don’t you think there be soil build once in a while. Here is a good example for you in regards geologic time chart…….:) Evolutionist would say for instance this layer of rock about 70 million years old, and the question would be how would you know these layers is 70 million years old??? And so Evolutionist would say they tell the age of the layers by what types of fossil they find them, they called index fossils and by the way that is correct, science text book says - Scientists use index fossils to determine the age of rock layers. Now other example would be, evolutionist find some dinosaurs bones for instance and say these bones that been found are about 100 million years old??? And the question would be how you know those bones are 100 million years old, and evolutionist would say they tell the age of the bones by which layer they came from. But wait…..lol…Evolutionists know the age layers by the bones and age of the bones by layers, is it that circular reasoning??? Strata are dated by the fossils “then” Fossils are dated by the strata. Science text says date the rock by the fossil and on the next page it says date the fossil by the rocks. (Glenco Biology 1994 p 306-307) It is a lie “circular reasoning”, And now I think I said enough, little break time….lol for me…..:)

No Shtal, NOT talking about "annual rings", by which I take it you mean the
rings inside tree trunks.

I'm discussing rock formations, mineral layers, the formation of peat, the movement
of soil due to e.g. wind erosion, the laying down of magma from volcanic activity ...

Your ( very confused ) post about the ice doesn't cut it;  underneath glaciers and
permafrost there will be soil sand and rock layers too, going back millenia.  But
I am trying to show you the earth as we stand on most of it !   If you don't want to
do geology, talk to some archeologists.  They do not find Roman artifacts buried
ABOVE 17th Century ones !  The same principles apply as on the longer, older
scale:  dirt gets deposited, on top of other dirt.  This is demonstrably true.  Why would
it become any less true, the further you investigate geological history ?

If what you say about the rocks of the Grand Canyon is true - and I don't know about that,
I'll have to look that up - the fact that in one area or another there has been less change
does not deny the whole.  (It just means there has been less 'change' - ie lack of volcanic
or weather activity in that particular area).
 
If you had any command of classical languages you'd know that the various eras
[Palezoic etc] were named for what was found within those appropriate layers - which
illustrates that we do not find dinosaur bones on top of medieval bones.
The early evolutionary scientists did not pluck names for geological periods "out of
a clear blue sky", they did what you are so reluctant to do; they DID THE MATH !

 

I am not interested with your religious explanation, period….Modern science today is very wrong about geology, most of modern geology is based on geologic column. And very few people realize geologic column as it presented 12 different layers meaning era. It does not exist, except in the text books, period….Geologic column BS has been great influential tool in the world and developing modern thinking and that is supposedly crowing accomplishment of geology, the fact they think they proved that the earth is millions years old. There is interesting material available to study what it called polystrate fossils; petrified trees, many times trees are found running through - many layers of strata. There is a picture's is available if you look; like one 47 foot tall tree running through 40 or 50 million years - worth of strata by evolutionist thinking; and yet the tree is standing up vertical position petrified. The simple fact is worldwide flood as mention in the Bible would have caused all of layers of strata in less than a year. Just the earth turning under the moon the tides would cause two, three, four or five layers every day to be deposited. Mt Saint Helens proved that when it erupted in 1980, it blew 600 feet of mud down into toutle river and blocked-off the toutle river. The mud dam lasted five days until river bridged over the top and carved-out miniature Grand Canyon in about 30 minutes. The miniature Grand Canyon that it carved out; when they went into it they noticed it was all stratified just like Grand Canyon is, all layers of strata; well moving water, moving mud automatically sort particles by density, hydrologic sorting that’s called. And so the worldwide flood mention in the Bible caused all of the layers of strata that we see and all of the erosion was caused very quickly, most of the erosion was caused, the badlands - Grand Canyon and etc….Was caused in the first day or so as the flood waters receded, which is plainly thought Psalms 104 and Genesis chapter 8. So I believe geologic science, geologic column absolutely is a fraud. I already explain this in my other post, all of the dating of geologic column is based on type of fossils they find and yet they date the fossils by the layer they found-in; absolutely circular reasoning. They have index fossil for each layer and then fossil are dated by the layer and layer is dated by the fossils. Geologist look to Biologist to prove evolution and Biologist looks back to geologist and hopes that he has proved it, actually neither one has proved it….It is simply a lie, it is just a 20 and 21 century myth. “Evolution is not science” The tragic thing is large number of scientists today believe, science is the only reality, if it cannot be proven scientifically then it cannot be real, but I would submit that today we do not know what gravity is, we know what it does but we don’t know what it is….We don’t know what light is and we don’t know what magnetism is and yet we use all three of them all the time, they are Definitely! Real even though we do not understand them and I say God is just as real and he did created this world about 6 -7 thousands years ago.

None so dumb as those that don't WANT to understand.