Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: cooperton

Mudstone IS a type of sedimentary rock!

Take some time to digest that. The rocks that they make you think are hundreds of millions of years old can be formed in the same way as brick.

You might want to read up about some of the data you post about.

There is not a single definition of mudstone that has gained general acceptance,[5] though there is wide agreement that mudstones are fine-grained sedimentary rocks, composed mostly of silicate grains with a grain size less than 0.063 millimetres (0.0025 in).[6] Individual grains this size are too small to be distinguished without a microscope, which means that most classifications emphasize texture rather than mineral composition,[5] and mudstones have historically received less attention from petrologists than have sandstones

Most sandstone is composed of quartz or feldspar (both silicates) because they are the most resistant minerals to weathering processes at the Earth's surface. Like uncemented sand, sandstone may be any color due to impurities within the minerals, but the most common colors are tan, brown, yellow, red, grey, pink, white, and black. Since sandstone beds often form highly visible cliffs and other topographic features, certain colors of sandstone have been strongly identified with certain regions.

Mudstone is nothing like say Sandstone which are both sedimentry rock formations but Sandstone takes longer to form and is far more robust.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: TerraLiga

You've aptly demonstrated in one, badly written, short paragraph how totally ignorant you are.

And your opinion works the same for you. I could use some better writting skills
but I do alright for a trucker don't ya think?

No, I don't. Your job is as irrelevant as your spelling and grammar. It's your ideas that matter.

When you're looking out of your cab windows onto the landscape thinking 'Isn't god wonderful', that is absolutely fine. But, when you then write on a public forum stating that everyone who doesn't think like you do is stupid, then you're asking for everything you get back - especially when you can't offer a single piece of evidence to back up your claim.

I suggest you moderate your flamewar language and responses and pick up a book that isn't religious. I have a suggestion or two if you want them.

originally posted by: Kurokage

You might want to read up about some of the data you post about.

You literally just misclassified mudstone as being different from sedimentary rock, yet I'm the one who needs to read up on this stuff?

Mudstone can form quickly and doesn't require millions of years.

The same is true for stalactites, which were also erroneously supposed to be millions of years old. Thanks to empirical science conducted by independent researchers around the world, we can get a more accurate timescale for how long it takes stalactites to form.



The above video is a home experiment conducted that shows that limestone stalactites can form rather quickly. In the experiment above he found that the limestone stalactite will grow about 1ft every 10 years. That means 1,000 years can generate a 100ft stalactite. The record for the longest stalacatite ever found is only 92ft long, in Brazil:



According to the experimental rate on limestone stalactite formation rate, this record-breaking stalactite could have formed in less than 1000 years. The confusion comes from random articles online making unbased claims, such as this article which arbitrarily claims that stalactites only grow about 4 inches every thousand years. Far different from the scientific experiment that showed 1000 years could generate a 100ft stalactite.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kurokage

You might want to read up about some of the data you post about.

You literally just misclassified mudstone as being different from sedimentary rock, yet I'm the one who needs to read up on this stuff?

Mudstone can form quickly and doesn't require millions of years.

I didn't misclasify it, I stated the differences between the types of sedimenatary rocks that excist.
You claimed..

And also, it's not well know that mostly all rock formations can form rather quickly. Consider how fast you can form a brick (mudstone) from mud. They assume these layers are super old because it fits evolutionary theory.

Mudstone and Sandstone form very differently and from different minerals, you inferred that it formed quickly. I was pointing out the obvious mistake.

ETA...
The calcite stalactites are very different from limestone.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Mudstone and Sandstone form very differently and from different minerals, you inferred that it formed quickly. I was pointing out the obvious mistake.

They both undergo compaction and cementation in the lithification process. They form from the same exact materials, just different sizes.

Face it, these layers form quickly. That's why there are countless examples of human footprints in sandstone and mudstone that is "millions of years old":























-this one is a little hard to read, it says apparently human footprints found in limestone strata.




petrified head found while quarrying rock.




a teaser for a later thread, they found giants all over the place in North America over 9 ft tall.







This shows that human footprints found in limestone and sandstone is actually quite common. This further insists upon the validity of modern examples of such footprints that are dismissed for no reason besides them defying current theoretical dogma.


"Meister Print"




close-up of the Meister print showing the edge of the sandalprint




Closer zoom-in shows the sandal actually stepped on a trilobyte!




"Willet Track" 1950 dislodged from Limestone




"Zapata Track"










"Delk Print"




Analysis of compression shows that the Delk Print was not carved




Prints from Berea Kentucky in sandstone



The Paluxy riverbed deserves its own section, because there are more apparently human prints here than many are aware of. There are an abundance of dinosaur tracks in this layer, and also what many believe are human footprints.




Here are prints found at Paluxy riverbed. Scientists began presenting this information and apparently they triggered someone at one of their presentations because it was later found that someone went and destroyed the prints:




Notice how it is clear someone purposefully destroyed the above track with a digging iron or rock chisel? This sort of cognitive dissonance is astounding. They destroyed this scientific evidence because it disproved evolutionary theory.




Large cat-like animal print also in the Paluxy area. Mammals existing during this time is equally ruinous to the evolutionary timescale as is the presence of human footprints in these areas.




Another footprint by the Paluxy riverbed




Cast made of a footprint from Paluxy

It would be impossible to try and accurately identify those and what type of material they're found in form an ATS thread or even from old news articles.
How many are misidentications of other animal prints or marks, It's easier believing in a magical invisble friend! They're worse than sasquach prints in old dusty books!

Let me guess, you believe they are all 6000 years old and god just magicly clicked his fingers and it all appeared over 6 days!?!?!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: littlecorn

The study of tree rings is a natural science and infact carbon dating is not used in its study.

your link

Yes it does. Go to page 1121 in your link.

They are saying new tree discoveries have set the tree ring record back to around 12400 years ago, therefore giving a calibration for c14 dating going back to this period.

Using the calibrated c14 from actual trees, they were able to date a separate group of trees who's dates were unknown.

I know it's complicated, but you must take time to read before making statements as truth.

Have fun.

originally posted by: Kurokage
It would be impossible to try and accurately identify those and what type of material they're found in form an ATS thread or even from old news articles.

It says it in the newspaper articles that they were found in sandstone, limestone, etc. You simply don't believe them because it repeatedly disproves evolutionary theory

How many are misidentications of other animal prints or marks

Eh, maybe a few, but even so, it corroborates with the fact that humans saw dinosaurs. This shows that the evolutionary timeline is drastically wrong:

Brachiosaurus


Utah's White Canyon Region



Amazon Rain Forest Basin in Northern Peru


El Toro Mountain part of the "Acambaro Figurine" collection found by Waldemar Julsrud



Mesopotamian Cylinder Seal of Uruk currently housed in the Louvre


Housed at the British Museum



By the North American Anasazi in the area now known as Utah. A natural brownish film over top the cave drawing authenticates its age.




A mysterious excavation in Tucson Arizona unearthed 31 Roman-style artifacts. One of which was this sword.


Protoceratops



Hongshan carvings approximately 4,000 years ago China


It is also important to note that the average dinosaur was approximately the size of a full grown dog.




Stegasaurus



Girifalco region of Southern Italy.



Tyranosaurus Rex


Holy Trinity Church built in the 1300s in the country of Georgia.

a reply to: LetTheColdCome

The Big Bang is the theory for the origin of the universe, not life.

a reply to: cooperton

Trying to claim someones artistic interpretation of what a creature looks like is a dinosaur is a bit far fetched. I've seen children draw dogs that look like most of those images. They could be absolutely anything. Also fossilized bones have been dug up since man came down from the trees and dug in the ground.

Mail online.
I know it's the mail online but the pictures used are whats important.
Just take a look at these medeval drawings and see how real creatures were interpreted.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Trying to claim someones artistic interpretation of what a creature looks like is a dinosaur is a bit far fetched. I've seen children draw dogs that look like most of those images. They could be absolutely anything. Also fossilized bones have been dug up since man came down from the trees and dug in the ground.

You really don't think this thing is a stegosaurus?




Seriously, what else could it even be?? Show the pictures to kids. They'll know exactly what dinosaur each one is, because it is very obvious what they are depicting

a reply to: cooperton

Seriously, what else could it even be??

Scams and hoaxes. Just like the mummified aliens and fake pics of giants.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Scams and hoaxes. Just like the mummified aliens and fake pics of giants.

Nah, evolution is the scam.

organic encephalized bi-pedal supercomputers (humans) don't come to be by random chance.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Nothin

Or is your Belief-System™ better than all of them-there infinite potentialities too ?

Only to obviously brother

Your beliefs are beautiful, no doubt.
Many folks, like me, have never experienced those feelings, and emotions that come with faith.
We can't call it wrong, because it is foreign to us.
Decided decades ago, that it was a much better experience for me to admire that faith, than to disdain or disrespect it.

Did God create everything, including even weirdos like me ?

Maybe God created 8 billion semi-intelligent sensors, to probe physical and metaphysical reality ?

Maybe God was curious about whether anything was not God ?

Atheists, agnostics, and weirdos of all stripes and flavours, why not ?

Perhaps we are participating in a grandly-designed experiment, where we are each a unique point-of-view, or perspective, and we each have multicoloured different perceptive filters, to consider and process this experience ?

ATS : Mosaic Soup. ( Oh ! There's some shameless self-promotion right there, eh ? LoL !! )


Now : just for fun, and if it doesn't ruffle any feathers : replace the idea that God is involved in all of the above text, and substitute AI™, or any other kind of creator, or designer, that is beyond our ability to comprehend ...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

Trying to claim someones artistic interpretation of what a creature looks like is a dinosaur is a bit far fetched. I've seen children draw dogs that look like most of those images. They could be absolutely anything. Also fossilized bones have been dug up since man came down from the trees and dug in the ground.

Mail online.
I know it's the mail online but the pictures used are whats important.
Just take a look at these medeval drawings and see how real creatures were interpreted.

You'll get used to Coop's recycled fake 'evidence' in just about every discussion with him. Most - if not all - of those pictures he's posted are known fakes, produced to further the creationist agenda. He uses them with every new person he comes across to try to convert them. He is utterly shameless.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
especially when you can't offer a single piece of evidence to back up your claim.

You sound like you have a lot of evidence to share!

1) Show me one example of a population of organisms evolving into something distinctly new. This would be required to show that the diversity of species is due to evolution

2) Show me one example of amino acid or DNA monomers polymerizing spontaneously in an aqueous solution. This would be required to show that life can come from non-life by random chance chemical reactions.

Those are two simple requests, which should be easy to find if evolution and abiogenesis are true.

You can save time and admit that neither 1 or 2 has ever been observed. It's because evolutionary theory is wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Scams and hoaxes. Just like the mummified aliens and fake pics of giants.

Nah, evolution is the scam.

organic encephalized bi-pedal supercomputers (humans) don't come to be by random chance.

Define what you mean with chance, right? It's not like humans are so different to the world they live in. That's not by chance. That Earth endet up in the constellation she has. Well yes that is chance, also that is basically proven by every single planet and astronomical object out there that is not like Earth.

You're no supercomputer. lol because you are 'part chance', a mutt as the kidz say.

originally posted by: Peeple

It's not like humans are so different to the world they live in. That's not by chance. That Earth endet up in the constellation she has. Well yes that is chance, also that is basically proven by every single planet and astronomical object out there that is not like Earth.

Even more absurd is the assumption that earth came to be by random chance. It perpetuates according to intelligible, predictable mathematics. That's the opposite of random.

You're no supercomputer. lol because you are 'part chance', a mutt as the kidz say.

Speak for yourself.

a reply to: cooperton

Well Mr. Supercomputer Earth is chance, there are millions of different astronomical objects who are not like Earth. Earth could have been different, the proof is everywhere around us.
There's just nothing to discuss Mr.Supercomputer.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: cooperton

Well Mr. Supercomputer Earth is chance, there are millions of different astronomical objects who are not like Earth. Earth could have been different, the proof is everywhere around us.
There's just nothing to discuss Mr.Supercomputer.

Everyone with a brain is a supercomputer... even if they want to forfeit what they are