the flood.

the flood.

Spirituality

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

7

Jew.

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
3938
15 Jun 06

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
i can't understand how our science can take the shells from ocean floors to the top of mountains over such a long time and they still are in good shape.
Million year old shells don't look like the shells you see on the beach. They are fossilised into rocks. Many of them likely do get destroyed or at least badly damaged and even more never get discovered. Those few we do find however tell us what we need to know.

b

Joined
10 May 06
Moves
4980
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
yes, now that is amazing. how is this explained through evolution?
Because them bottom-dwelling mullosks evolved inot moutain climbers.

g

Joined
08 May 06
Moves
782
15 Jun 06

what's up you knuckle heads

g

Joined
08 May 06
Moves
782
15 Jun 06

what kind of clown are you??????

g

Joined
08 May 06
Moves
782
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by beerbrewer
Because them bottom-dwelling mullosks evolved inot moutain climbers.
what ever

b

Joined
10 May 06
Moves
4980
15 Jun 06

Joined
31 May 06
Moves
1795
15 Jun 06

I have to agree. with the sentiment if not the form of delivery.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
so, can the atmospheric changes have an effect on dating systems 60,000 yrs or less?
Perhaps if the parent amount of 14C in the atmosphere were different it may have some effect, but radioCdating methods work so well and have been so rigourously tested it seems exceptionally unlikely. Also, we were in an ice age from 118,000 years BP to 18,000 years BP and atmospheric CO2 conc was relatively static.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
i don't know much about dating systems and are trying to learn. i was under the impression that 60000 years and less were not dated by radioactive decay rates and could be affected by the environment. i think i was wrong.

i've heard talk about how it's the nucleus that decays and cannot be changed as other neculai around would not take on the same effect. y ...[text shortened]... hat i'm looking at here is it possible to speed up time and how, despite how confused i am?
You need to read up on genetics too apparently. Please try and explain that point again. I'd love to know what to refute.

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
yes, now that is amazing. how is this explained through evolution?
Evolution has nothing to do with geology.

t
True X X Xian

The Lord's Army

Joined
18 Jul 04
Moves
8353
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by beerbrewer
Look here, you infantile f@ck. If you have nothing to contribute to the conversation at hand go back to your momma's t!t where you belong.
Look at that folks! The irony meter shatters!

s
Kichigai!

Osaka

Joined
27 Apr 05
Moves
8592
15 Jun 06

Originally posted by 7ate9
well from the point that science takes, it makes no sense that shells would appear on top of mountains and high places at the same time. it is through the gradual changes of the earth... such as continental drift. evolution would come into play if it is linked to those other fields,as for the long periods it takes for the land to achieve this the shells would ...[text shortened]... anything in regards to the flood, it does show the areas that earth has undergone big changes.
Here is a nice site about some 240 million year old fossil beds 15,000 feet up the side of a mountain in California.

http://members.aol.com/Waucoba7/uw/uwfieldtrip.html

7

Jew.

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
3938
16 Jun 06
2 edits

7

Jew.

Joined
13 Oct 04
Moves
3938
16 Jun 06