[continued from previous message]   
      
   minerals from various sources, and the surrounding areas uranium levers also   
   affects the final product. Where are there any surrounding evidences, such as   
   vegetation etc by which to compare it and its relativity.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > 3. Similar environments, not similar events, result in   
   > > > > > > > > > continent-wide strata similarity   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Nope. I looked at a geological strata map across America from   
   Calif to   
   > > > > > > > > the east coast, three of them. You could see the layers   
   change, twist, and   
   > > > > > > > > the consistency of layering was only in short areas.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Which would contradict Snelling's own description of widespread   
   > > > > > > > layers.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > I suppose it would. I wish I had the link to the article,   
   pictures. Etc.   
   > > > > > > To show you.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > At least we agree that Snelling was wrong about something!   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > 4. Low-relief strata are the final stage of erosion to a   
   > > > > > > > > > peneplain (think Kansas in the U.S.)   
   > > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > > 5. There are no footprints of dogs in the Paleozoic!   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > In what areas of the world? There is no consistent layer level.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Anywhere in the world. What do you mean by "consistent layer   
   level"?   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > There is no place in the world where there is a consistent layer   
   level that   
   > > > > > > is exhibited over a wide geographical area. The order of the   
   layers say   
   > > > > > > from 1-7 is not world wide consistent.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > They get only as large as their depositional basin. No world-wide   
   > > > > > layers and therefore no world-wide Flood.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Think about what you just said and what you stated earlier regarding   
   the   
   > > > > upheavals of the earth that would account for certain layers of the   
   earth   
   > > > > being on the mountain sides. As in the ‘mummy fields” That fact   
   alone,   
   > > > > from you, would dissuade the idea of a consistent layering across the   
   > > > > world.   
   > > > > That idea alone would render your last statement a mistake.   
   > > >   
   > > > If you're talking about the geologic column, almost all modern YECs   
   > > > believe it exists. Then they build their cartoon-like history of the   
   > > > earth around that concept, creating the pseudoscience of Flood geology   
   > > > as they go.   
   > >   
   > > I told you to look it up so that you could have a clue about what I was   
   > > saying, instead you prove that you create thoughts that are irrelevant and   
   > > from that make baseless accusations formed from your agendized thinking.   
   >   
   > None of that has been happening. You're just trying to keep up with my   
   > scathing description of Flood geology.   
      
   Scathing? Surely you jest. :)   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > Do a little research into the “mummy fields” of Wyoming..   
   Discovered   
   > > > > > > on the side of a mountain.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > And mummies couldn't have formed during a Flood. What's your point?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > What else would account for them? They are by far the best   
   representation   
   > > > > of   
   > > > > a particular breed of dinosaur including the skin texture that is   
   > > > > currently   
   > > > > known to man.   
   > > >   
   > > > Burial in desert conditions could explain the fossil mummies.   
   > >   
   > > Well, you just blew up any ideas that you somehow had any understandings of   
   > > geological events.   
   >   
   > How so?   
      
   Because it is patently clear that you know nothing of the Mummy fields I was   
   speaking of. Should you actually look it. Up you would actually learn quite a   
   bit, as well as current history, and the best specimen of a dinosaur known to   
   man at this time.   
      
   Let me advise you that should you go online and find it with the clue above   
   that I gave you here several times, then do not read what you wrote about it.   
   Delete it lest it be an embarrassment to you. ;)   
      
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > 6. Metamorphism is not necessary for rocks to fold -- just a   
   slow   
   > > > > > > > > > strain rate is required.   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Nor is it necessary to heat iron to fold it. Just an anvil,   
   hammer,   
   > > > > > > > > and   
   > > > > > > > > a skilled metalsmith.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > Rocks are not metals.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > The slip process is virtually the same. Look up the process.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > What do you mean by "slip process"?   
   > > > >   
   > > > > The folding of Iron rocks, etc. a shear-slip is one form of it,   
   speaking   
   > > > > in   
   > > > > geological terminology.   
   > > >   
   > > > The folding of strata you may have seen in pictures are not iron.   
   > > > They're made of sedimentary rocks like shale, sandstone, and   
   > > > limestone.   
   > >   
   > > You just keep digging bigger holes for yourself.   
   >   
   > LOL! Why don't you provide a source for you ridiculous belief that   
   > sedimentary rocks are made from iron?   
      
   I don't wish to rub the truth in your face.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > > Now, did you read my article?   
   > > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > > Nope. I considered it, but I have seem so much one-sided agenda   
   > > > > > > > > oriented   
   > > > > > > > > articles which are written unscientifically over the years   
   that it   
   > > > > > > > > sickens   
   > > > > > > > > me. It is rare to find a paper or someone or some group that   
   isn’t   
   > > > > > > > > shaded   
   > > > > > > > > anymore. They all give in to politics, social agendas, and   
   group think   
   > > > > > > > > or   
   > > > > > > > > mutual funds that it inhibits most true creative science.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > That's a lot of words to describe what you're doing here, namely   
   being   
   > > > > > > > a coward.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > Thank you for your insight. But there is no cowardice within me. I   
   have   
   > > > > > > been   
   > > > > > > there, done that, many times before, just like the link to your   
   article   
   > > > > > > in   
   > > > > > > regards to stalagmite’s. The subject of which I referred to in my   
   > > > > > > posting   
   > > > > > > about limestone above.   
   > > > > >   
   > > > > > I was never involved in that. So prove you did this before, and do it   
   > > > > > again here for my benefit, at least.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Maybe later, at present this is taking up too much of my time, and this   
   > > > > thread is morphing into many variants outside the subject of the   
   thread.   
   > > > > As   
   > > > > is normal on the Usenet. VBG.   
   > > >   
   > > > Evasion noted.   
   > >   
   > > Evasion of what?   
   >   
   > Proof that you've "been there, done that" regarding the link I posted   
   > about 21 disproofs of the idea of Noah's flood.   
      
   You showed no proof. Just disjointed info that you gave as reasons, and even   
   your proofs stated that it was all subjective. As One scented disagreed with   
   other, yet they all were of one idea, that being no flood, and being anti God   
   is their motivation for doing so. That reveals the purposes and reasonings   
   for their summations. Thus they are only providing "shade”.   
   >   
   >   
   > > > > > > > > I am also not really into arguments of this type, as my focus   
   has been   
   > > > > > > > > on   
   > > > > > > > > God, spirituality, both in this world and the other world,   
   which BTW   
   > > > > > > > > is   
   > > > > > > > > more real than the limited one we dwell in.   
   > > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > > So science is not your forte.   
   > > > > > >   
   > > > > > > It is not my focus, I have been involved with various sciences,   
   some   
   > > > > > > being   
   > > > > > > part of my work history, and also because I read a lot about many   
   things   
   > > > > > > in   
   > > > > > > most all areas of life, I have at the least a modicum of knowledge   
   and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)