[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> > > > > > No. What I am saying is that none of it takes millions of years,   
   since   
   >> > > > > > there   
   >> > > > > > has not been even a million years that have passed yet, and I was   
   saying   
   >> > > > > > that   
   >> > > > > > the standard understanding was what you pointed to, and is pushed   
   upon   
   >> > > > > > everyones mind whenever you take a cave tour, that you are not to   
   touch   
   >> > > > > > them   
   >> > > > > > as the oil from your fingers might inhibit their growth. I   
   understand   
   >> > > > > > the   
   >> > > > > > layering and building processes as well as the mineral contents   
   in the   
   >> > > > > > water   
   >> > > > > > and how they affect the coloring, I also deeply appreciate the   
   beauty of   
   >> > > > > > them when you hit them with lights.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > The can form relatively rapidly, but others take a lot longer to   
   form.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > Where in your documentation was their evidence of quick buildups.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > They've done radiometric dating of some stalagmites, and found them to   
   >> > > be growing very slowly. It's in the link I posted that you supposedly   
   >> > > knew about.   
   >> >   
   >> > Growth in those conditions depended greatly on water flow as well as the   
   >> > amount of chemicals per drop, it the source of the water is dependent upon   
   >> > humidity and it varies for the typical reasons then growth is slowed down.   
   >> > Yet I have seen, over the years, visible growth in different caves across   
   >> > the US.   
   >>   
   >> Right. So for regions of low water flow rates and low percentage of   
   >> chemicals per drop, you're not going to get stalagmites in just a few   
   >> thousand years.   
   >   
   >Not provable, the growth varies just like tree rings, or ice layers at the   
   >South Pole.   
      
   The Antarctic ice layers go back hundreds of thousands of years.  Has   
   the same been found for any stalagmites?   
      
   >> > Also, radiometric dating are for supposedly dead things, and even then it   
   is   
   >> > a best guess scenario. Stalagmite's, etc, are a living growing thing   
   >> > constantly building up from the environment total, meaning fresh water.   
   >> > Fresh   
   >> > 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.   
   >>   
   >> No, you're thinking about carbon dating. There are other kinds of   
   >> radiometric dating that don't rely on "dead" things, if you mean by   
   >> that "things that were once alive."   
   >   
   >They can only relate things to known proven points in time or age, this goes   
   >for all dating theories. Even then they can be up to a couple hundred years   
   >off. unless there is something nearby with a date on it, or the name of a   
   >current ruler or event impressed on coinage etc.   
      
   There are ways of dealing with initial daughter product, (which   
   presumably what you're talking about, is it ).  For example it can be   
   estimated from a rock's Sr-87/Sr-86 ratio in Rb-Sr dating. And a   
   couple of hundred years off is not significant on the time scale being   
   investigated.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > > 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. :)   
   >>   
   >> No, I'm quite serious. My word choice and tone of voice were   
   >> definitely harsh enough to be called "scathing." Then your   
   >> content-less reply had a similar type of word choice and tone of   
   >> voice, which is why I say you were just trying to keep up with my   
   >> criticisms of Flood geology.   
   >   
   >Well, lol, your ’scathing’ was all in your head, as I did not note it,   
   >And your tone of voice no more different than normal. I will not argue with   
   >you about how upset you may have been, as I was not there.   
      
   So in other words, you just don't get what's going on around you in   
   this discussion.   
      
   >I have dealt with people before who dwell in the same irrationality as   
   >yourself, and who know very little about any form of age dating. And no one   
   >has any provable long term ability to age date beyond a few thousand years.   
   >And to base ones information on theoretical projections as proof is asinine   
   >and unscientific at best. While age dating has improve a lot since the   
   >original theoretical forms, it is still nowhere where it should be.   
      
   No, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb are some common dating methods that extend   
   back more than a few thousand years.   You're not familiar with this   
   subject, are you?  I mean it seems that your assumption about   
   radiometric dating being confined to a few thousand years has   
   supplanted the actual facts of radiometric dating for some reason.   
      
   >Besides, there is a time period that they know not of, and that was the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)