http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/22-curiosityrov.jpg
This shows layer after layer built up over millions of years of a giant lake filling up, evaporating, filling, evaporating.
Here is a planet where there was no world wide flood EVER. So how old do you think this place is? Do you think it too has to be only 6000 years old? If so how do you explain all these obvious layers?
Or this photo, taken recently also by Curiosity:
Very closeup the whole image is about a foot across:
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/25-curiosityrov.jpg
Layer after layer on a very small scale, done by water collecting from snow melting on the rim of the crater and filling the lake then the lake evaporates and these layers are the result of that happening thousands of times over very long periods of time.
So that could not happen in just 6000 years, and there never was a world wide flood here, even if that fairy tale was right, it ONLY would have happened on Earth, not Mars but there you see all those layers. Millions of years of layers, just like the diatoms and such in the oceans of Earth.
You can't explain all those layers on the bottom of the oceans which shows the dead organisms falling at a proven rate of a few millimeters in a thousand years.
So your 6000 year fantasy is dead wrong and those Mars images prove it.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut that might explain the absence of life on Mars. The animals on Mars couldn't get to Noahs boat!
So that could not happen in just 6000 years, and there never was a world wide flood here, even if that fairy tale was right, it ONLY would have happened on Earth, not Mars ....
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is nothing there that even suggests that it could not have taken place within 6,000 years. So yes, I stick with the Biblical 6,000 years.
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/22-curiosityrov.jpg
This shows layer after layer built up over millions of years of a giant lake filling up, evaporating, filling, evaporating.
Here is a planet where there was no world wide flood EVER. So how old do you think this place is? Do you think it too has to be only 6000 years old? If so how do ...[text shortened]... in a thousand years.
So your 6000 year fantasy is dead wrong and those Mars images prove it.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you figure the snows on the peaks of the crater melts, fills the lake completely, then evaporates in what, one month, then the lake is dry, then next season more snow (2 years about for one Mars year) then the lake fills again, and a month later evaporates? Can you tell me how a lake a hundred miles across can bury a mountain and then evaporate in such a short time?
There is nothing there that even suggests that it could not have taken place within 6,000 years. So yes, I stick with the Biblical 6,000 years.
It is impossible. It takes ages for a lake that large to evaporate.
It is, again, your cognitive dissonance that will not allow you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure the snows on the peaks of the crater melts, fills the lake completely, then evaporates in what, one month, then the lake is dry, then next season more snow (2 years about for one Mars year) then the lake fills again, and a month later evaporates? Can you tell me how a lake a hundred miles across can bury a mountain and then evaporate in such a ...[text shortened]... It is, again, your cognitive dissonance that will not allow you to wake up and smell the coffee.
"If our hypothesis for Mount Sharp holds up, it challenges the notion that warm and wet conditions were transient, local, or only underground on Mars," said Ashwin Vasavada, Curiosity deputy project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. "A more radical explanation is that Mars' ancient, thicker atmosphere raised temperatures above freezing globally, but so far we don't know how the atmosphere did that."
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-curiosity-rover-clues-martian-landscape.html#jCp
It is just a hypothesis. That means it is a guess, pure speculation.
Originally posted by sonhousesonhouse, trying to get RJHinds to agree with you on science is like trying to get agreement from the "True Christians" over at landoverbaptist.net that they take the Bible too literally.
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/22-curiosityrov.jpg
This shows layer after layer built up over millions of years of a giant lake filling up, evaporating, filling, evaporating.
Here is a planet where there was no world wide flood EVER. So how old do you think this place is? Do you think it too has to be only 6000 years old? If so how do ...[text shortened]... in a thousand years.
So your 6000 year fantasy is dead wrong and those Mars images prove it.
RJHinds doesn't actually believe what he claims but it would betray his persona here to admit that.
Originally posted by SuzianneIt is, and a very well done parody at that - the premise is that they take the King James' Bible at it's literal word - no contextual interpretation other than taking precisely what it says as literal truth. Basically it is a site full of variants of this RJHinds character (only played better).
What IS this crap?
Is it a parody site?
Some of the threads (as I recall from long ago when I used to frequent the site more often) are brilliant (though of course more of them aren't).