Re: It's Gumby Damnit!


Gerard wrote:
Comeon Bob, stop nitpicking!!

I'll gladly accept an 8,500 year old bristlecone pine. Afterall, it
better fits with the actual age of the earth in relation to the
biblical genealogies associated with the patriarchs, a much more
accurate way of determining human history. This goes back as long as
11,000 years ago. So I'm happy with any tree under 10,000 years old,
which is still living. It strongly suggests that an event prevented the
aging to go back beyond Eden.

so how do you account for creosote bushes 12,000 years old?


You better check out your sources on the pines too.

Regarding what is the "fall", it's original sin.

Regarding the one continent, as another poster pointed out, I am off
biblically on this, it was just a few hundred years after the global
flood.

Regarding my stadium like structure of earth, the evidence supports it.
We have in my scenario, icey regions on the outermost parts melting
rapidly as forty days of rain falls,

What evidence supports this assertion?

we have the division of these
mountains later on,


What evidence supports this assertion?

causing the ice glaciers rapid movements,


What evidence supports this assertion?

which
evidence reveals all around, contain boulders from different
continents.

Which boulders from different continents?

I'll soon present a list of these islands and shores which
contain rock layers from thousands of miles apart, and which were
errantly attributed to gradual ice age movements.

Oh, please do. Geologists are agod with anticipation.

The arguement will
show how gradual movements cannot explain the larger 10 ton boulders.

It "will" show, will it? So come on. what's the argument?

Because the fact of the matter is that these boulders would've settled
and nestled into regions within a hundred or so miles of the continents
they were a part of.

It is? I don't know of any glacial erratics whose source cannot be
traced back to a source entirely consistent with other evidence of
their origin. But hey! if you have evidence professional geologists
don't know about, please stop hiding your light under a bushel.

Slightly offshore. My arguement is that they were
all driven there by an almighty force, which seperated the continents
while leaving traces of this event.

What evidence supports this assertion?

There's so much out there to discover, Why do all of you (dead set on
evolution folks) get out of that niche you are comfortable with and
learn the real history of earth?

A question we could well ask of you. You have little knowledge of
geology, as your posting history shows. What do you think geologists
have been doing over the past three centuries? Sitting in their offices
making up stories?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... You're claiming earth expansion, ... > If you're saying that cratons were the initial continents, ... >> Unless, of course, the original ocean basins were formed from impact basins. ... >> evidence to support either slow or fast hypothesis. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: A General Introduction to the Expanding Earth
    ... despite the overwhelming evidence against it. ... overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat, ... the mainstream in geology during the first half ... If so the continents would also be on a recycling ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Early Earth Wasnt So Hellish
    ... Earth was a hellish planet barren of continents. ... from outback Australia and found evidence that a fringe theory detailing the ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Pagano and Moons Recession
    ... rotation of the Earth. ... Now if this slowing is due to the Earth-Moon interaction, ... WRT continental drift, Iceland is 'living evidence'. ... satellite data now prove the movement of all the continents just as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... Regarding my stadium like structure of earth, the evidence supports ... were errantly attributed to gradual ice age movements. ... continents they were a part of. ...
    (talk.origins)