Colloidal Silver Facts. Please Read.

[demographic]

So Tadpole, you believe your great, great , great, ect, ect, Grandfather was an ape and his great, great, great, ect, ect, Grandfather was a blob of somthing that came out of the sea, because that's basically the theory of evolution right. Stop and think for a moment, do you know how ridiculous that sounds. It's a theory and that is all it is nothing more nothing less.

Oh dear. This ones Borken.

 

[sapper1]

I think you might find that evolution is considered to be backed by sufficient evidence to be accepted as the best available model (carefully avoiding the use of the term "proven"! here... ). All the arguments currently going on in the scientific world about evolution are about how it happens, not whether it happens.

As you say it's the best we have until something else comes along.before evolution there was creationism,the best at the time.before creationism there was something else that was the best at the time.
As a species we are learning all the time.

 

[Gavmar]

That Great, great, great grandfather 'ape' was millions of years ago.
The fossil record can be accurately dated and the context in which it is found is secure.
Every season's excavation brings us more data, more examples, more background to add to the Theory of Evolution.

Geological time takes no account of man's egotism.

cheers,
Toddy

The Oldest Tree

A Bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.
The Oldest Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20years.

Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest-living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or bigger reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?
Earth’s Slowing Rotation

Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.
Population


Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the current.


The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

 

[Toddy]

You are mistaken.
The oldest *living* Bristlecombe pine is a little under 5,000 years old. The tree ring correlation though shows an overlap with that tree and an older dead one......which has even older rings too, and that tree has rings that match up with an even older dead but still standing in situ tree, and this stretches the dendrochronology back over 10,000 years.
That's fact; and that's only *one* species.

The rest of the your diatribe is compounded drivel.

Gavmar, where are you regurgitating this mince from ? It's not good, it's not clever, it's snake oil stuff.

Go and read and absorb some genuinely peer reviewed, that means they're trying to debunk it, science.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Tadpole]

So Tadpole, you believe your great, great , great, ect, ect, Grandfather was an ape and his great, great, great, ect, ect, Grandfather was a blob of somthing that came out of the sea, because that's basically the theory of evolution right. Stop and think for a moment, do you know how ridiculous that sounds. It's a theory and that is all it is nothing more nothing less.

Ida watch this if'n i were you. (if it is too long, just watch from about 3:00 minutes in, it explains what is known.) Warning there are a couple of swear words.

 

[gregorach]

If all the animals except those on the Ark were wiped out in a global flood, how do you explain the global distribution of species - e.g. all those marsupials in Australia but nowhere else? How did they get there, and why aren't they anywhere else?

 

[Tadpole]

The Oldest Tree

A Bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.
The Oldest Reef
The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20years.

Worlds Oldest tree,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm
the Great Barrier reef, parts of its base is 600,000 years old,
some of the living parts are at least6,000 years old and may be even older (8,000)

 

[ged]

The rest of the your diatribe is compounded drivel.

Now come on, Mary, don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think.

 

[CaptainBeaky]

Having a slight 26.4/26.5 moment here...

You expect to find living organisms older than 4-5000 years?

However:

Ahem... : Dendrochronological record (i.e. a complete sequence) going back 10k years. DC records are of value when they are in unbroken sequence - they can then be used to cross-check and calibrate radio-carbon dates. RC dates go back a lot further, but precision decreases due to the lack of a cross-check. Loads of folk working on DC sequences, so expect to see these going further back than 10k before present.

Edit: I may be a little hazy on the dendrochronological bits, but I have studied the statistical bits of RC dating, albeit some time ago

...exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.

What difficulty is that, then? Citation, please.

Science 19 July 1991:
Vol. 253 no. 5017 pp. 299-300
DOI: 10.1126/science.253.5017.299
Expansion and Contraction of the Sahara Desert from 1980 to 1990

1. COMPTON J. TUCKER,
2. HAROLD E. DREGNE and
3. WILBUR W. NEWCOMB

Abstract:
Data from polar-orbiting meteorological satellites have been used to determine the extent of the Sahara Desert and to document its interannual variation from 1980 to 1990. The Sahara Desert ranged from 8,633,000 square kilometers in 1980 to 9,982,000 square kilometers in 1984. The greatest annual north-south latitudinal movement of the southern Saharan boundary was 110 kilometers from 1984 to 1985 and resulted in a decrease in desert area of 724,000 square kilometers.

(my emphasis)
Sometimes it gets bigger, and other times, it gets smaller...

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Citation, please. All the information I can find in a quick trawl points at mean salinity being unchanged, with widespread geographical and seasonal variations.

Reference1 Reference 2

 

[Toddy]

"Now come on, Mary, don't beat about the bush. Tell us what you really think. " [quote, ged]


What does he expect ??

I'm an archaeologist. I actually understand and use the science he's mangling.

I have excavated and dated artefacts from Scotland, where the last of the Ice only melted 10,000 years ago, that are older than he claims the Bristlecombe pines can be.

I have physically removed from secure context, items that predate his timings.
I have studied with archaeobotanists who have lacustrian core samplings that demonstrate many thousands of years more life on Earth than he accepts.

I know of two seperate oak sequences in Europe, one Irish, one German, that both take oak dendrochronology back nearly 10,000years, and that's not in the arid preservation of the Bristlecombe Pine habitat.

That's just one tiny little part of our knowledge.

Toddy

 

[_mark_]

Man join Bushcraft forum,
His use of grammar is called into question,
Man leave forum.

 

[Toddy]

Man join Bushcraft forum,
His use of grammar is called into question,
Man leave forum.

Grammar use is not the issue.
An inabililty to read and understand with any discernment however........

M

 

[Gavmar]

Lol. Evolution v's Creationism. I'm not even gonna start talking about raw apricot seeds and there cancer curing properties

 

[nitrambur]

Oh dear, I've been using various forums through the years and all I need to say is...

 

[CaptainBeaky]

Man join Bushcraft forum,
His use of grammar is called into question,
Man leave forum.

Poor grammar I don't mind.
Willfully misleading pseudoscience I do mind.


Ooops -I fed it... OK, 26.4 it is, and I'm out.

 

[Toddy]

[QUOTE; Gavmar] "Lol. Evolution v's Creationism. I'm not even gonna start talking about raw apricot seeds and there cancer curing properties "


So very glad. Too many gullible and scared people out there.

We are beyond fortunate in the United Kingdom to have the National Health Service.
My son was treated for cancer and had the best of treatment.

I thank each and every one of you who pays National Insurance; I really, really do. Andrew's alive and healthy because you do.

In nations where that blessing is not available, and medical aid is a often a euphemism for an excuse for how wealthy one is not one's need, then the poor and benighted struggle with home remedies like apricot stones, and die because of it.

Toddy

 

[gregorach]

I thank each and every one of you who pays National Insurance; I really, really do. Andrew's alive and healthy because you do.

I'm more than happy to - I can only hope that I put more into the pot than I ever need to take out.

 

[demographic]

The Oldest Tree

A Bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.
The Oldest Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20years.

Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest-living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or bigger reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?
Earth’s Slowing Rotation

Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.
Population


Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the current.


The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

So, the oldest living bacteria found being 250 million years old doesn't upset that theory a bit?

Alive...after 250 million years
The bacterium lived millions of years before the dinosaurs
Ancient bacteria trapped in a state of suspended animation for 250 million years are the world's oldest living things, claim US scientists.

The microbes are ten times older than any previously discovered living organism and may reopen the debate about the origins of life on Earth.

The bacteria were found in salt crystals buried almost 609 metres (2,000 feet) below ground at a cavern in south-east New Mexico, US.

Until now, the world's oldest living survivors were thought to be 25-40-million-year-old bacterial spores discovered in a bee preserved in amber.


We're 250-million-years and counting as far as the survival of an organism goes in a crystal.

Dr Russell Vreeland
Bacteria are known to adapt to harsh conditions by forming resistant structures called spores.

They can exist in a state of suspended animation for long periods.

Dr Russell Vreeland, from West Chester University, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, made the latest discovery.

"There are a lot of people who believe that organisms can survive long-term, particularly the spores themselves," Dr Vreeland told BBC News Online. "We have provided the strongest evidence that in fact these things could survive for extremely long periods of time.

"We're 250 million years and counting as far as the survival of an organism goes in a crystal."

Origins of Life

The crystals were in a drill sample taken from an air intake shaft at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the world's first underground dump for radioactive waste left over from making nuclear weapons.

When they were extracted from the crystals in a laboratory and placed in a nutrient solution, the micro-organisms revived and began to grow.

Crystal/West Chester University
The crystal that contained the organisms
The bacterium, known as Bacillus strain 2-9-3, resembles modern-day Bacillus organisms found in the Dead Sea.

The bacterium also raises questions about how life began on Earth.

It has re-opened an old debate: whether it is possible for life in the form of DNA or dormant microbes can be carried by asteroids or comets, or drift in interstellar clouds, to fall and colonise suitable planets such as the Earth.

Travelling at the speed of light, the nearest star to the Earth would take 4.2 years to reach and the nearest galaxy 2.2 million years.

But even huge distances like these might be within reach for bacteria that live for 250 million years.

"Once you're out to that distance then you are easily within the time period necessary for a rock to be blown off Mars, for instance, or even from a planet on a nearby star, and for that rock to travel to the Earth," said Dr Vreeland.

He said his personal belief was that life did start on Earth, but the discovery meant it was theoretically possible for life to travel between planets.

Martian meteorites

The most intriguing question, he said, was whether other planets, such as Mars, might harbour life.

Salt deposits in the form of halite - the crystals in which the long-lived bacteria were found - have been discovered in Martian meteorites.

"When we go to explore Mars, salt crystals would be a spot to look at," Dr Vreeland added.

In this study, reported in the journal Nature, the authors took steps to minimise the risk of contamination from ubiquitous modern-day bacteria by sterilising the surface of the crystal. They said the chance that the Bacillus strain 2-9-3 came from some external source was about one in a billion.

But independent experts said the team's findings would have to be replicated by other researchers before it could be fully accepted.

Reports of ancient bacteria recovered from the likes of rock, coal, and 2,400-year-old Egyptian temples have not stood up to scientific scrutiny in the past.

 

[sapper1]

One thing that makes me wonder about evolution is:-If we evolved from primates,why are they still here?

 

[nitrambur]

One thing that makes me wonder about evolution is:-If we evolved from primates,why are they still here?

We, and other primates, evolved from a common ancestor who now isn't here.