Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
One often wonders what would happen if evidences of human existence were found in the geologic column much earlier than the period in which humans are assumed to have existed. Would it not cause a revolution? Apparently not. Instead, it would probably be explained away, or ignored. There are already many evidences of human existence much earlier in the geologic column than the period in which humans are thought to have existed, and yet these evidences have been ignored or explained away.
The following charts are taken from Cremo, Michael A & Thompson, Richard L., Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (Bhaktivedanta Book Publishing Inc., Los Angeles, Revised Ed.1996.), hardback, 914 pages, ISBN 0-89213-294-9. To interpret the information in these charts, you need to know that "neoliths" and "paleoliths" are tools and artifacts assumed to have been made by humans at various stages of human history. Although the authors of this book are not Christian and are not committed to a recent creation, this book has a wealth of information about evidences for human existence all through the geologic column. The book covers anomalous human fossils from the pre-Cambrian to the late tertiary. The following charts are only a portion of those found in it. According to conventional thinking, humans did not exist until much later than the assumed times of these fossils.
Wow, why is modern scientist suppressing the truth? It is obvious, even by these evolutionists, that something is not being honestly reported about the geologic column.
Here, Buggman, I put this where it belongs, on the front page. Let's watch vaderetro rant all over this...
I know a coal miner from West Virginia who claims to have found a gold necklace in a lump of coal. He says that other miners have similar stories of finding artifacts that could only be human in origin.
I have also seen pictures of an unpetrified (yes, still wood) tree that ran between two layers of coal supposedly deposited millions of years apart. Yet geologists claim that it is impossible. And it is, if you choose to believe men and not God.
Thanks. The only problem that I see is that with all of these threads that you've generated in one day, none of them are going to have the chance to develop beyond the initial flaming. For future reference, I'd suggest that you start one thread at a time, invite all of the usual suspects, and let it play until it dies of natural causes.
I've been enjoying the rants, though, even as bored as I've become with the subject (having felt that we talked the existing evidence to death months ago). :^)
Yours in Truth,
I have also seen pictures of an unpetrified (yes, still wood) tree that ran between two layers of coal supposedly deposited millions of years apart. Yet geologists claim that it is impossible. And it is, if you choose to believe men and not God.
Can you post a picture of that please? Why do I have a funny feeling I will never see that image?
Actually, I have it on a tape by John McKay, a Christian geologist with a pHD, where he is giving a lecture at Oxford on the Great Flood and all the evidence that exists supporting it.
Here are the particulars on the box;
An Evening at Oxford
The evidence for Noah's Flood
Creation Research Center
P.O. Box 281
Hartsville, TN 37074
No, I don't have video capture capability and it probably wouldn't be very high quality anyway.
Answered it already where Buggman posted it. Can't see duping it here.
Now I have to admit that it is interesting. But even I can think of many way that could have been formed. However, without knowing the exact ground tilt for that image (both before and after the tree fosile) I would be ignorant to present my theories.
Gosh, next time I looked, my trees have lots of roots going down many layers of soil. But the Bible told me that was impossible, so guess those trees are not real.
Actually, I enjoy these debates and love to find interesting puzzles. God created the world and science explains how he did it.
Is that pHD alkaline or acid?
why are you posting this crap. Everyone knows that the earth was created in 6006 BC. Just read the bible for the proof.
I am posting this "crap" because in another thread VadeRetro challenged me with "taking on the whole Geologic Column." - of which I am; the earth is very, very young. This post shows that even secular, non-christian, evolutionists have evidence of humans all throughout the geologic column, thereby invalidating the geologic column as a dating mechanism. Instead, the geologic column is proof of a massive, global flood.
This stuff is fascinating and fun to think about on rainy days. They just announced another Mayan city was discovered, even bigger than the previous big one. They are claiming only 800 years age on it, it is just under a thin jungle layer, but I bet when they excavate they will find some really ancient items.
I fail to see how a chart, on which the earliest date is 10 million years after the last of the dinosaurs (65 million years ago), and the latest date is 1.8 million years before the creation of the earth (per the Bible - 6006 bc), helps to prove that the earth is very young and was created all at once about 6000 BC. By the way, the current geological column dates the origin of the earth as about 4.5 billion years ago, so 55 million years is just a small fraction of it.
Is this evolution thing a big conspiracy of thousands of people planting fake evidence in hundreds and thousands of places for over 150 years, including burying the evidence inside of mountains with no trace of the burial?
How about posting some SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth was created all at one time about 6000 BC?
You missed the point.
Instead, the geologic column is proof of a massive, global flood.
To assist my understanding of your assertion, I want to make sure I correctly understand what you're saying. As near as I can tell you believe:
1. The above evidence completely invalidates the "geologic column" as a dating mechanism.
2. The same "geologic column" is entirely consistant with a world wide flood.
3. There is no similar evidence refuting the world wide flood hypothesis.
Are any of those three above statements incorrect? And if so would you please correct them?
I once saw a tray of supposedly 'ancient' dinosaur bones, and there was a McDonalds wrapper sitting in it!!!!
My neighbor said 'his kids had probably dropped it there', but I don't buy that for a second.
Keep up the good work, and one day soon centuries of scientific effort will be overturned by some goober on F.R. cutting and pasting fake science articles.
Please try the Weekly World News if you haven't already, they would make an excellent source for you.
1. The above evidence completely invalidates the "geologic column" as a dating mechanism.
This is only one piece of evidence that invalidates the geologic column. There exists a whole lot more evidence that also invalidates the geologic column as a dating mechanism.
2. The same "geologic column" is entirely consistant with a world wide flood.
Yes.
3. There is no similar evidence refuting the world wide flood hypothesis.
I dont completely understand your question here. Do you mean that the "geologic column" refutes the world wide flood?
1. This is only one piece of evidence that invalidates the geologic column. There exists a whole lot more evidence that also invalidates the geologic column as a dating mechanism.
But even if the other evidence didn't exist, would this piece alone suffice to accomplish this invalidation?
2. Understood
3. I dont completely understand your question here. Do you mean that the "geologic column" refutes the world wide flood?
I don't even know what is meant by the term "geologic column." That's going to be my next question. All I mean to ask is whether it is your contention/understanding that there is no evidence in the "geologic column" (whatever your definition of that term) to refute a world wide flood (again, the type of flood that meets your definition of this event).
New questions:
4. Please define the term "geologic column." I have a general idea, but do not want to assume.
5. Please define the world flood event as you understand it. How long ago did it happen? Was any land at all left uncovered? How quickly did it happen? Any other details.
(Incidentally, I'm asking in this meticulous way because I constantly watch people talk past one another on this topic because they don't understand what each other are claiming but think they do. I'm trying to avoid arguing over semantics rather than ideas)
000517 ice and age000517 ice and age
No – I don’t understand. We have ice that is 500,000 years old
http://unisci.com/stories/19991/0325994.htm
University Science
|
Radar Reveals Climate Change Through Ice Layers Nature has a way of throwing curves at glacial scientists trying to diagram climate history and find evidence of cycles that might have altered weather repeatedly during hundreds of thousands of years. Like tree rings, each glacial layer corresponds with a particular year and contains clues about what was happening in the atmosphere. But as researchers drill cores through Antarctic ice sheets, it is difficult to be sure each layer contains snow that actually fell at that spot and that the layer is at the right level to correspond with a particular time frame. They can surmount the first problem by drilling at an ice divide, essentially a peak on the glacier that forces ice to flow downhill one way or another, the same as an alpine continental divide does with water. Now they have a new tool to overcome the second difficulty -- ground-penetrating radar that shows precisely at which level each ice layer lies. University of Washington researcher Edwin Waddington, an acting geophysics professor, and three colleagues from the British Antarctic Survey describe the radar's effectiveness in today's issue of Nature. British researchers David Vaughan, Hugh Corr and Christopher Doake used radar to produce images to a depth of about 100 meters at an ice divide at Fletcher Promontory in Antarctica. At the divide's core, the images show an arch formed as each new layer settles lower on either side of the core. The authors call such arches "Raymond Bumps" for UW geophysics professor Charles Raymond, who postulated their existence in 1983. Raymond showed that ice deep under an ice divide should be very hard and slow to flow, so the upper layers would tend to drape themselves over it, much as a blanket over a sleeping person settles lower to either side. The radar images also show other distortions, and indicate the ice is behaving in a way inconsistent with researchers' normal assumptions when modeling flow within ice sheets. Ice cores could produce skewed findings if scientists are unaware of the bumps' existence. Waddington, who helped interpret the radar data, notes that some cores are so well stratified that precisely dating each layer is no problem. "What is a problem is that you know these layers are getting thinner and thinner toward the bottom because they're being compressed from above and stretched to the side by the force of downhill flow," he says. Computer models are able to calculate the forces that compress and stretch the layers, Waddington says. But they must accurately predict the size of the subsurface bump or they won't precisely reflect how thick each layer actually is and the research will yield false results about snowfall rates in the past. The findings emphasize the need for glacial geophysicists to help interpret ice core data, he says. The models use information about the thickness of a given ice layer at various spots. From that, a snowfall average for a given year can be deduced. Then scientists studying the corresponding layer of an ice core can determine, by its thickness, whether the core site had more or less snow than nearby areas, and whether the amount might have been influenced by climate phenomena. The new research shows radar can be used to map a large area to determine snowfall patterns and average thickness of individual layers, Waddington says. That will give scientists an idea of the best places to drill, and also will provide a record for comparison with predictions from climate models. The British scientists used commercial radar in their work, but Waddington notes that the UW geophysics department has developed its own complementary radar for glacial study. That radar, pulled behind a snowmobile, can't image the top 50 meters, "but it's very good at seeing all the way to the bottom in places where the ice is one to two kilometers thick," he says. The radar finding is important as scientists use Antarctic ice cores to understand changes in atmospheric chemistry, temperature and precipitation through long periods of history. The most complete ice core goes back to about 500,000 years ago, through four ice ages. Researchers are looking in more recent ice layers for signals that tell of cycles such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation(ENSO), which produces the El Niño and La Niña climate phenomena. They also are seeking evidence of very large and very fast climate changes. "They're looking for ENSO signals in the ice cores through the past several hundred years, and rapid climate shifts through ice ages of 100,000 years apiece," Waddington said. - By Vince Stricherz [Contact: Edwin Waddington, David Vaughan, Hugh Corr, Christopher Doake, Vince Stricherz]25-Mar-1999 For More Science Coverage: UniSci Science and Research Newshttp://unisci.com |
© 1995-1999 UniSci. All rights reserved.
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/grip/gases.html#ank97
Schwander, J., Sowers, T., Barnola, J.-M., Blunier, T., Fuchs, A. & Malaize, B. 1997. Age scale of the air in the summit ice: implication for glacial-interglacial temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102, 19483-19493.
Corresponding author: Jakob Schwander, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
The air occluded in ice sheets and glaciers has, in general, a younger age (defined as the time after its isolation from the atmosphere) than the surrounding ice matrix because snow is first transformed into open porous firn, in which the air can exchange with the atmosphere. Only at a certain depth (firn-ice transition) the pores are pinched off and the air is definitely isolated from the atmosphere. The firn-ice transition depth is at around 70 m under present climatic conditions at Summit, central Greenland. The air at this depth is roughly 10 years old due to diffusive mixing, whereas the ice is about 220 years old. This results in an age difference between the air and the ice of 210 years. This difference depends on temperature and accumulation rate and did thus not remain constant during the past. We used a dynamic firn densification model to calculate the firn-ice transition depth and the age of the ice at this depth and an air diffusion model to determine the age of the air at the transition. Past temperatures and accumulation rates have been deduced from the d18O record using time independent functions.
We present the results of model calculations of two paleotemperature scenarios yielding a record of the age difference between the air and the ice for the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) ice cores for the last 100,000 years. During the Holocene, the age difference stayed rather stable around 200 years, while it reached values up to 1400 years during the last glaciation for the colder scenario. The model results are compared with age differences obtained independently by matching corresponding climate events in the methane and d18O records assuming a very small phase lag between variations in the Greenland surface temperature and the atmospheric methane. The past firn-ice transition depths are compared with diffusive column heights obtained from d15N of N2 measurements. The results of this study corroborate the large temperature change of 20 to 25 K from the coldest glacial to Holocene climate found by evaluating borehole temperature profiles.Blunier, T., Chappellaz, J., Schwander, J., Stauffer, B. & Raynaud, D. 1995. Variations in atmospheric methane concentration during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 374, 46-49.
Corresponding author: Thomas Blunier, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Records of the variation in atmospheric methane concentration have been obtained from ice cores for the past 1,000 years and for the period 8,000--220,000
yr BP (refs 1-4), but data for the intervening period, spanning most of the present interglacial period (Holocene), are patchy (refs 5-7 and references therein). Here we present a continuous, high-resolution record of atmospheric methane from 8,000 to 1,000 yr BP, from the GRIP ice core in central Greenland. Unlike most other climate proxies from ice cores (such as oxygen isotope composition and electrical conductivity), methane concentrations show significant variations - up to 15% - during the Holocene. We have proposed thatt variations in the hydrological cycle at low latitudes are the dominant control on past levels of atmospheric methane. This is now supported by the observation that the lowest methane concentrations in our new record occur in the mid-Holocene when many tropical lakes dried up. The concentration increases during the Late Holocene, probably owing to an increasing contribution from northern wetlands.
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 14 | Top | Last ]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |
