Seahawks

could we let this great thread go to page 5??? lol Kevbone how old are you?

Seahawks. Im risking a great internet bond by talking to you. But I thought is was important enough to do it. So here it goes FUCK OFF BITCH! Coming from you, Thanks,

Internet fight!!! No fight as I'm Not defending a position. I don't beleive either side can be proved. The listing of the article was mearly to prove a point that there is another side that can be scientifically upheld also. Maybe even better but that for each person to decide.

Yes, retard LOL now that is funny

E rock you like that article huh??? That guy is alot smarter that you fuck head. Did you read it??? I bet not becuase you like your head in your ass.

The best debaters on the 'other' side don't bother wasting their time arguing against sound science. The rest are fucking morons. Like I said any theory is possible. But hey this all came from nothing. LOL scientific law makes that impossible. Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years. Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts. With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century. However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays. The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2 Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework. This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result! In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses. These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age. Percent Modern Carbon Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age. Percent Modern Carbon Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5 The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended. Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures. Dr. Baumgardner is Adjunct Associate Professor of Geophysics

E-rock I've seen debates on this shit over and over. Nobody wins. Nobody can prove any of it. So you choose to beleive your faith that there is no God and I'll choose to beleive what I will. Like I said before I hope your right. Best debaters in the world can't prove either side. So either side takes faith to beleive. So whether you like it or not you have to have faith in something.

Do you even know these paragraphs, which you cut-and-pasted from the internet, are about? It apppears as though you're trying to present this information as an alternative theory of the Grand Canyon's age, which it is not. This body of research, which happens to have been generated by FRIENDS of mine from the University of Utah, among others, only argues that lava-daming episodes in the Grand Canyon, based on Ar-Ar ages of basalts, and cosmogenic dating of dam-burst deposits were shorter-lived, and more catostrophic, than was originally described in older models based on K-Ar dating and faulty geomorphologic assumptions. This body of research says nothing about the overall age of the Grand Canyon EXCEPT that it had to have existed at the beginning of the Pleistocene (~1.8 Ma) in a state similar to its modern appearance (i.e. it was already a big, deep canyon). Indeed this fact had to be ASSUMED for this research to have even been pursued. P.S. the volcanic crater on Mt. St. Helens is not analogous to a mini Grand Canyon because it was created by an EXPLOSION, duh. Since you need it spelled out to you, topic was how old it was. And since everyone thinks that layer represent millions of year, there are other theories. You can't prove yours and you can't prove mine. You want to call me a dumbshit and and I want to call dumbass. Point is nothing can be proved. Like I said previously let just hope your cocky ass is right. But don't try to tell me that it is absolute becuase that is bullshit and the best debaters in the world can't prove this shit. You have your faith in something and I beleive something else. Laughable part is that you say you have friend who wrote this, lol whoa guess we will beleive you becuase of that. Your a fucking lier. It was written by SCOTT H. RUGG and STEVEN A. AUSTIN. Are they your friends?? no,, suck ass. Several important geologic features, which have been previously overlooked, give strong indication that the Pleistocene lava dams of the western Grand Canyon formed rapidly and were destroyed catastrophically within several tens to hundreds of years after formation. We believe that the entire span of time from the formation of the first dam to the destruction of the last dam could have transpired over a time-frame of less than 2000 years. We consider our time estimate to be generous, leaving open the probability that the total time-frame could have been considerably less. It is undisputed, by even uniformitarian geologists, that the several single flow lava dams formed in a length of time as little as several hours to days. The larger multiple flow dams (consisting of 3 to over 40 flows) are commonly stacked one atop the other with no signs of significant erosion. Although it is clear that in many instances interflow erosion has occurred, we have shown that the presence of interflow gravels actually indicates catastrophic flooding, rapid erosion, and deposition, and, therefore, does not require us to accommodate hundreds to thousands of years for these erosional features. Catastrophic flooding is clearly represented by the coarse cross-bedded gravel on top of Gray Ledge remnants. The most convincing evidence that the dams where short-lived structures is the presence of relatively small isolated depositionally-intact aggraded delta deposits within tributary drainages of the eastern and central Grand Canyon. The fact that these relatively uneroded deposits occur within the most active erosive areas, and the absence of lake deposits on the least erosive areas (Tonto Platform and protected side canyons), reveals that the larger lava-dam lakes were not in existence long enough to allow for complete sediment infilling. The small quantity of delta deposits that are present could have accumulated easily in less than one hundred years. Hamblin [6] believes that 13 separate lava dams once blocked the inner gorge. The relative age of the 7 older dams were determined by only two overlap relationships. This allows for the possibility that several of these dams may have coexisted as a complex mega-dam structure . The presence of tephra deposits within several dam remnants is hard evidence that several of the dams coexisted. K-Ar dates for many of the lava dams are out of sequence from that determined by juxtaposition. These essentially "impossible" dates show the difficulty in assessing the sequence of the dam remnants, and reveals the possibility that many of the correlations proposed by Hamblin may be in error. Furthermore, a sample of Toroweap Dam retrieved and dated in this study yielded dates of 3.1, 3.4 and 20.7 Ma, which are significantly older then the date (1.8 Ma) of the oldest dam (Prospect) determined in Hamblin’s study. Either Hamblin’s dates should be much older or the samples of Toroweap dam contain excess argon. In any case, the K-Ar dates obtained in this and Hamblin studies reveal the inherent problems of this dating method, casting doubt on the standard interpretation of 1.8 Ma for the Pleistocene Epoch. The presence of lava-dam remnants near the present level of the Colorado River reveals that the canyon has undergone only negligible deepening since the time the dams originally formed. Furthermore, the normal flow of the Colorado River has not appreciably widened the inner gorge. Under a uniformitarian interpretation, this means that the Grand Canyon has not undergone appreciable erosion at least for the 1.8 million year period of the Pleistocene. A better interpretation [1] would be that the Grand Canyon is a relic flood-formed feature, and, likewise, that the lava dams were short-lived, catastrophically formed and eroded features.

LOL ever read the big bang theory or do you just take parts you want??? Big bang theory doesn't say there was something here before. Since your so smart you tell me where the matter came from??? It magically appeared??? Come on are you that stupid you can't open your eyes. Blinded by your text books. Talk about faith in something that is so stupid. Bottom line is nothing can be proved and for every theory someone has another has one that is just as good. So either way you go Creation or evolution it takes faith for both. So pick a side and let hope your right. But to be as bold to say that one side has no validation is stupid. There is no abosulte proof for either.

Funniest thing about scientists is one of the major laws they have. Something can't come from nothing. Well then what the hell was the big bang theory. Matter just came from nothing??? That makes fucking sense.

is this possible, certainly just look at Mt. Saint Helens mini Grand canyon. Point is no one knows, just guesses. every theory is possible. Over 200 isolated outcrops of horizontally stratified, basaltic lava flows within the inner gorge of western Grand Canyon indicate that several natural "lava dams" blocked the flow of the Colorado River during the Pleistocene, resulting in the formation of several lakes within the canyon. The largest lake was 90 m above the high water level of present-day Lake Powell and backed up a distance of over 480 km to Moab, Utah . Although early studies indicated that three or less dams once blocked the inner gorge, work completed in 1994 indicated that at least 13 distinct lava dams may have blocked the Colorado River. Comparison with modern erosion rates of cliff retreat (Niagara Falls) indicate that the 13 dams would have required a minimum of 250,000 years to erode during the Pleistocene. However, geologic features and relationships not previously considered indicate that the dams formed rapidly (hours, days, or months) and failed catastrophically soon after formation. Excess radiogenic argon is contain within many basalts of Grand Canyon. This initial argon invalidates K-Ar model ages which are assumed by many geologists to require an age of more than one million years for the oldest lava dams. We envision that the entire episode of the lava dams can easily be reconciled within a time-frame of less than two thousand years. Our observations and interpretations reveal serious flaws in the current long-age time-scale of the Pleistocene Epoch.

Based on what?? That thier beliefs are more inline with yours? All theories. No one really knows. That is the truth.

Funny thing here is everyone thinks they know how old it is but reality is nobody does becuase nobody was there. Any age given is only a theory. Bottom line is no one knows.

Better idea, why don't they just ax everything you write!! Heck I quess knowing where Seagal is, is pretty important! lol hey seafag, you may proceed to deriLICK my balls LOL knaw you might enjoy.

Better idea, why don't they just ax everything you write!! Heck I quess knowing where Seagal is, is pretty important! lol

See you guys need this thread so your not bored at work, so I'm giving it a bump.

Hawks havn't looked good all season but anyone who doesn't give them a chance is a fool. One word "Rex"

Too bad he doesn't go hunting with Hillary Clinton.

gahdam, you stupid bastard and your ignorance of grammar. You're torturing me. dipshit I did that on purpose, I hope your joking or your the dumbass.

Anyone who ever has anything bad happen to them wonders why, and often the second thought is "who can I blame?" This "fluoride is bad for you" is voodoo science. Just like power lines and cancer: no matter how many studies fail to find a correlation, some people will still believe the high voltage towers are why junior had to go through chemo. Let me repeat, totally insensitive wankers. I never asked who I could blame for getting cancer, please don't put words in my mouth. I simply asked, hmmm I'm 23, why do I have cancer. Maybe you should get some cancer yourself and see how you like it when people attack your intelligence for trying to figure out why. You forgot they don't like to figure anything out here. It requires thinking.

There saving there banging for you.

How about that Muff!!!! Got like Muff!!!!

Go Hawks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys had to go and post on this thread. Didnt you! The thread is Irresistible.

That probably funniest part of that movie. I can just hear everyone saying I wish they would zip this thread.