Dems and Pedos

Status
Not open for further replies.
Monkey Man said:
Actually bro', any rational examination of the evidence would suggest that his greatest "trick" was deceiving us as to how and when they got there.
Click to expand...
Is that radiometric dating methods, or the layers of earth on top of the fossils?

Or is it the layers of fossils showing low complexity life at the lower layers, and progressing upwards increasing in complexity?
 
I'll attempt to answer you both:

On average and almost-exclusively, the least-mobile, most-dense, least-intelligent animals are found in the lower layers, progressing towards the most-mobile, light and intelligent ones at the top. Apparent complexity has nothing to do with it. Cells are typically extremely-complex whether you're talking about a lizard or a duck. Said animals' density and upward mobility OTOH are vastly-different stories and whaddaya know, explain their positions in the layers.

Of course, the layers tell you all you need to know; that's not dirt laid down over eons. Even if it were, animals would have been eaten and their remains disintegrated long before anything like that could happen, which it can't... because land is washed into sea every time it rains.

Everything's going down, not up - earthquakes cause settling, as do sink holes, rain takes soil and silt (raising sea levels and mineral content therein) and so on. Millions of tonnes of dirt are deposited in the oceans every hour. Just think of how big / wide the Nile, Amazon etc. rivers are. In terms of dissolved minerals alone the number is huge. Streams start out at nearly 0 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS) and typically end up at over 300ppm by the time they hit the ocean. This is why it's hard to lather soap in the shower in coastal areas; the water's plain-hard with minerals.

The radiometric methodology assumes a stable Carbon 12 level / one equivalent to what it would have been many thousands of years ago. It's been calculated that if you started with a brand-new earth today it'd take 30 000 years for it to stabilise (like pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it and eventually reaching the point where outgoing = incoming, something I achieve every week with my wallet in a few seconds :LOL: ).

HTH guys.
 
Monkey Man said:
I'll attempt to answer you both:

On average and almost-exclusively, the least-mobile, most-dense, least-intelligent animals are found in the lower layers, progressing towards the most-mobile, light and intelligent ones at the top. Apparent complexity has nothing to do with it. Cells are typically extremely-complex whether you're talking about a lizard or a duck. Said animals' density and upward mobility OTOH are vastly-different stories and whaddaya know, explain their positions in the layers.

Of course, the layers tell you all you need to know; that's not dirt laid down over eons. Even if it were, animals would have been eaten and their remains disintegrated long before anything like that could happen, which it can't... because land is washed into sea every time it rains.

Everything's going down, not up - earthquakes cause settling, as do sink holes, rain takes soil and silt (raising sea levels and mineral content therein) and so on. Millions of tonnes of dirt are deposited in the oceans every hour. Just think of how big / wide the Nile, Amazon etc. rivers are. In terms of dissolved minerals alone the number is huge. Streams start out at nearly 0 ppm total dissolved solids (TDS) and typically end up at over 300ppm by the time they hit the ocean. This is why it's hard to lather soap in the shower in coastal areas; the water's plain-hard with minerals.

The radiometric methodology assumes a stable Carbon 12 level / one equivalent to what it would have been many thousands of years ago. It's been calculated that if you started with a brand-new earth today it'd take 30 000 years for it to stabilise (like pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it and eventually reaching the point where outgoing = incoming, something I achieve every week with my wallet in a few seconds :LOL: ).

HTH guys.
Click to expand...

So you think the earths layers have just been churning in an almost semiliquid state for some amount of time, and these more dense creatures settled to the bottom?

Now let me ask you, was this length of time 5,000 years, billions of year, or somewhere in between?

Also do you realize the oldest fossils cynobacteria found in the lowest layers are far less dense than bones?
 
CrazyNutz said:
So you think the earths layers have just been churning in an almost semiliquid state for some amount of time, and these more dense creatures settled to the bottom?

Now let me ask you, was this length of time 5,000 years, billions of year, or somewhere in between?
Click to expand...
Far from being in-between, all that's required is a few hours, not 5000 -> billions of years.

The experiment's been conducted many times using water tanks and assortments of animals. Typically air rises from bottom-centre from a giant "airstone", gently churning everything.

Another interesting-and-related experiment anyone can conduct him / herself is to fill a jar with water and soil from the garden, shake it up and let it settle. Multiple layers will quickly form. That's why those gadgets where you flip the narrow frame and the sand within it forms striated layers work. The reason the layers aren't perpendicular to gravity is because the narrow width dampens the secondary currents, which if allowed to continue would disperse things more.

As for the first part of your question again, that couldn't happen of course 'cause everything would rot; it had to be in the neighbourhood of weeks or less, not 5000 years or more. Settling in such a timeframe would ensure that the mineral, anaerobic and pressure conditions necessary for preservation would be present.

I'd like to bow out 'cause I'm a slow typist (and thinker) bro'. Too much to do to justify the time I anticipate (dread) having to put into this stuff. Investigated it for over 40 years but it's one of those things that once one's 100% convinced one's over it.

Hope you're well Brother CentristNutz. :thumbsup:
 
Monkey Man said:
Far from being in-between, all that's required is a few hours, not 5000 -> billions of years.

The experiment's been conducted many times using water tanks and assortments of animals. Typically air rises from bottom-centre from a giant "airstone", gently churning everything.

Another interesting-and-related experiment anyone can conduct him / herself is to fill a jar with water and soil from the garden, shake it up and let it settle. Multiple layers will quickly form. That's why those gadgets where you flip the narrow frame and the sand within it forms striated layers work. The reason the layers aren't perpendicular to gravity is because the narrow width dampens the secondary currents, which if allowed to continue would disperse things more.

As for the first part of your question again, that couldn't happen of course 'cause everything would rot; it had to be in the neighbourhood of weeks or less, not 5000 years or more. Settling in such a timeframe would ensure that the mineral, anaerobic and pressure conditions necessary for preservation would be present.

I'd like to bow out 'cause I'm a slow typist (and thinker) bro'. Too much to do to justify the time I anticipate (dread) having to put into this stuff. Investigated it for over 40 years but it's one of those things that once one's 100% convinced one's over it.

Hope you're well Brother CentristNutz. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...


I'd say you have a deeply emotional attachment to a belief system. So I'll leave it at that.

I'm good. However ever since the grandson (he lives with us) started school he has brought home every microbe imaginable.
So we've been sick about twice a month 🤣
You good?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top