[continued from previous message]   
      
   >environment of this earth before the Great Flood. Which puts a kink into   
   >everyones projections.   
      
   Which would not affect the reliability of radiometric dating.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > 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.   
   >>   
   >> The claim is yours, so you should verify it. In a word, "cite", if   
   >> you can.   
   >   
   >I gave you the info necessary too of a 30 sec search on the net, so that it   
   >would pop up. There are various sources and links to it. You never asked for   
   >it, just assumed that you knew all about it.   
      
   A search for "dinosaur mummy fields" doesn't seem to contradict my   
   statement that they could represent deposition in a desert   
   environment.   I've said this before (it can be found in the   
   attributions above), but you keep veering off into other topics.   
      
   >I would have preferred that you found it yourself, so it would not be tainted   
   >by your opinion of me.   
      
   That makes no sense, since the entire thread is "tainted" by my   
   opinion of you.  One cite is not going to change that.   
      
   >> > 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. ;)   
   >>   
   >> Why couldn't these mummies have been formed in a desert setting, like   
   >> I said? Or are you talking about bone beds that weren't formed from   
   >> literal mummies but from other forms of soft tissue preservation   
   >> (they're called lagerstatten, I believe) like anoxic deep-water   
   >> environments or burial in volcanic ash?   
   >   
   >If you looked it up, the history of its background and the miners who   
   >inadvertently found it, and then scientist recently who looked into it,   
   >everyone states that it is an outstanding fined and different than anything   
   >preceding it.   
      
   That has nothing to do with the ridiculousness of Noah's flood still   
   found in modern pseudo-science.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > > 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.   
   >>   
   >> I don't mind rubbing the truth in your face. So don't worry about   
   >> that. Just cite your sources, if you have any.   
   >   
   >https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2ANXRAD/banded-iron-formation-rocks-in-the-pilbara-   
   >western-australia-2ANXRAD.jpg   
   >   
   >Found in many parts of the world often embedding better fossils that found in   
   >limestone.   
      
   Those are iron oxides, not iron per se, and generally date to before   
   the Cambrian Period, so they don't have "good fossils" in them. And   
   most sedimentary rocks are not banded iron formations.   
      
   >> > > > > > > > > > > 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”.   
   >>   
   >> How would you know if any proof was "shown" -- you wouldn't even look   
   >> into the link where I claim it was shown. And there are plenty of   
   >> mainstream geologists who believe in God but of course don't subscribe   
   >> to the fiction of Flood geology.   
   >   
   >As I recall you posted no link to your list, just posted the list which I   
   >figured was generic and not of your making, Even so, had you posted the link   
   >it no know has the thoughts of various men who disagree with each other like   
   >the link you posted to regarding what the causes of NDE’s were a result of.   
   >Because I read such things and see could’ve, might be’s, and possible,   
   >and other such terms in many of those types of articles it shows their   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)