[continued from previous message]   
      
   > > > > > > > > > > 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   
   > > 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.   
   > >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)