Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New Evolutionary Discovery

seriously? you realize topsoil is also used not just deposited....stuff is pulled out of it by plants which convert it to tissue, which is eaten by animals, turned to ash and CO2 and such in fires and released into the air....or just blown or washed away by rain....there is a reason dams silt in over time, whole lot of topsoil winds up in rivers and slowly makes its way to the oceans and eventually subducted due to plate tectonics....come up here Woddy and check out our badlands, unreal how much "top soil" can disappear quick in the right conditions....hell the jobsite im shooting cross sections for is so highly errosive you can watch the stuff move as the ground thaws, making its way down stream with this winters snow melt

not to mention how much topsoil is just blown away by our winds....i get sandblasted by the stuff all year long as it blows its way east....its not just put down never to move again....

You believe in erosion? Do you believe in erosion enough to believe the continents, at present rates, will erode into the ocean in only 14,000,000 years? What would that do to a fossil deposit 15,000,000 years old?

I'm not disputing geology just the methods for calculating the time envelope. So given this data you believe the earth is little over 10,000 yrs old?

Your not intellectually honest enough to accept a factual answer even if it's provided.

Hell, you're not even intellectually astute enough to get paid for the work you actually do, or did.

Tell us again how the Earth is only 4,000 years old.

also to point to the mobility of topsoil, part of the reason the Amazon exists is that a whole lot of nutrients in the sands of the Sahara in the form of tiny agae and similar particals from the last time it was wet get blown across the Atlantic and dropped with the rain on South America....each lil piece is tiny enough to need magnification to see...specs of gnat chit type stuff, but every year enough of it blows over to add up to many tons......

topsoil is HIGHLY mobile.....living in Nebraska i wouldnt think this would be a foreign idea to you....i get why someone in the PNW ot Gulf Plains might not see it but you live on the Great Plains where you should be experiencing it moving just like we do up here

know enough to know that data aint right.....in order for it to be right the topsoil has to never move but it does

Woody you also realize the water flowing in the rivers is not pure H2O, its full of minerals and organics dissolved in it thats been leached(removed) from the top soil.....yeah each rain removes very tiny amounts but add it up over the last 10,000 years there has been grasslands where i or you stand and its a whole hell of alot of material....not to mention as the organics decay they get converted to gases like CO2 and methane and such and get released into the air....once again, each one doesnt amount to much but it adds up to millions of tons as years go on....

Long before Nebraska top soil even existed we were covered by an inland Cretaceous sea as evidenced by swimming fossils.It wasn't 4K,10K or even 1 million but around 84 mil to be exact.

Compared to Obummer's birthplace evolution vs creation seams relatively simple...

i know, where i live was the shore of that sea 68myo....its the source of our gumbo and bentonite.....and the T-rex and triceratops fossils(from where the shoreline, inland deltas were) seashell fossils where the ocean was.....have some ammonites and baculite fossils from it not 5 feet from where i am sitting from the ocean part.....hope to add some dino fossils from here this year from the road cuts i have to work

Ringman, having seen you embarrass yourself any number of times over the years, I have to say I agree with 4ager; you're not intellectually honest enough to accept an explanation.

I know that guy Jim's conclusion was based on ten paleoindian male skeletons and a number of female skeletons. From that sampling a few things stand out.

1) Facial features/skull morphology (that means "shape") quite unlike any modern group, including Indians.

2) A shared genetic mutation in common with modern American Indians.

3) A marked sexual dimorphism in size between adult males and the adult females, greater than in any modern group.

4) Evidence of childhood/adult malnutrition in females (the dead teenager in the cave was already suffering from osteoporosis, perhaps from the effects of having given birth to/nursed a child).

5) A large number of healed injuries among the men, especially skull fractures.

You may also note "that guy Jim" puts forth theories (ie. possible explanations) based on this evidence.

Birdwatcher

Nope.

I did about two minutes looking and came to the following cut and paste. That is as far as I am going to look for you. It looks like I am not even current.

Human and [bleep] DNA--Nearly Identical?
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *
Evidence for Creation

For the past several decades, the standard mantra has been that humans are 98 percent genetically identical to [bleep]. However, this claim is based on cherry-picked data and does not take into account the vastly different regions of the two respective genomes.

Major research published over the past decade comparing human and [bleep] DNA was recently reviewed and critiqued.1 In every single publication, researchers only reported on the highly similar DNA sequence data and discarded the rest—apparently because it was too dissimilar. In fact, when the DNA similarities from these studies were recalculated using the omitted data, markedly lower levels—between 81 and 86 percent similarity—were found. Even the well-known [bleep] genome paper published by evolutionists in 2005 provides a genomic similarity of only about 80 percent when the discarded nonsimilar data are included and only 70 percent when the estimated size of the [bleep] genome is incorporated.2,3

Birdwatcher,



You flatter yourself in that you think you know my feelings.



Was this information posted earlier? I missed it.



I read your posts for quite awhile now and noticed you are not intellectually honest enough to accept an explanation. Sad, isn't it?

You have no clue, do you? Carbon dating doesn't work that far back. Instead they use isotopes of other elements with much longer half-life..

Some of it on the link, but then you'd have to have read and understood it.

The rest was presented in the IIRC the most recent issue of National Geographic magazine.

As for the rest of your post; there ya go looking like an idiot again. You'd best go consult with Dr. Somebody-or-other on some Creationist website and then come back with more arguments like your completely moronical soil erosion-as-proof-of-young-earth analogy

See, YOU don't have to feel anything to embarrass yourself here, in fact it would make you look even stupider if you were entirely unaware of it, as is apparently the case.

Just telling it like it is.

Birdwatcher

That's my argument. I read that every sample of fossil or fossil fuel has been carbon dated, even diamonds. The maximum half life of carbon 14 is about 50,000 years. Kinda creates a problem doesn't it?

There you go again not doing your homework. I got the info from an evolutionist geologist. He told me as the continents erode in 10,000,000 to 14,000,000 they also rise. He didn't realize he gave me, a creationist, fuel to use some day in the future; which is now.

Who should be embarrassed? Just asking it like it is.

no because they all bottom out the scale at 50,000 years ago.....which is the oldest you can use for carbon dating.....kinda like saying a 300 pound person only weights 250 pounds cause they bottomed out a 250 pound scale....no they dont weight 250, you need a different scale which is where things like Potassium-lead, calcium-argon, Chlorine-36 or other dating methods.....just cause you bottom out a scale doesnt mean its the only way to measure......get another, bigger phuggin scale

The half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.

As las pointed out, potassium-argon and uranium-lead are dating methods using radioactive isotopes that have much longer half-lives than carbon 14, and they can be used to date objects much older than carbon 14 can. Over 100,000 years back for potassium-argon, and over a million years back...up to 4.5 billion years back...for uranium-lead.