1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    08 Dec '14 22:591 edit
    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.
  2. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Dec '14 06:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    On photo one are you saying those striations across the rocks was caused by evaporation?
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Dec '14 06:31
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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 that might explain the absence of life on Mars. The animals on Mars couldn't get to Noahs boat!
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    09 Dec '14 09:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    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.
  5. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    09 Dec '14 09:33
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    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.
    I hate to burst your bubble here, Ron, but in NO way is this "6,000 year" nonsense "Biblical".
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Dec '14 11:20
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    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.
    You declared in this forum recently that I "deserve to burn in hell" because I reject what you claim is the biblical truth of eternal suffering.

    By the same token, does Suzianne "deserve to burn in hell" for rejecting what you claim is the biblical truth about the 6,000 years?
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    09 Dec '14 11:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    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.
    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 short time?

    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.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    09 Dec '14 18:29
    Originally posted by divegeester
    You declared in this forum recently that I "deserve to burn in hell" because I reject what you claim is the biblical truth of eternal suffering.

    By the same token, does Suzianne "deserve to burn in hell" for rejecting what you claim is the biblical truth about the 6,000 years?
    No.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12693
    09 Dec '14 18:42
    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.
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Dec '14 19:011 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    sonhouse, 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.

    RJHinds doesn't actually believe what he claims but it would betray his persona here to admit that.
  11. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Dec '14 21:38
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No.
    What's the difference? Why do think I as a fellow Christian deserve to burn in hell when Susianne doesn't?
  12. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35519
    09 Dec '14 22:07
    Originally posted by Agerg
    landoverbaptist.net
    What IS this crap?

    Is it a parody site?
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Dec '14 22:312 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    What IS this crap?

    Is it a parody site?
    It 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).

    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).
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86307
    09 Dec '14 22:44
    Originally posted by Agerg
    It 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).

    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).
    Are you ex Christian yourself?
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    09 Dec '14 22:47
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Are you ex Christian yourself?
    No, I've always (as long as it counts) been an atheist ... I'm intrigued by the question though, what suggests I might previously have been a Christian?
Back to Top