glenn and group:
I guess i opened up a can of worms by referring to the work of
Carl Baugh (even tho I didn't mention his name, Glenn did). I
suppose I could have been naive to take his claims about the pink
atmosphere and its psychological effects at face value, but do
you have anything to disprove these particular claims? Now the
living pteranodon - that sounds like quite a stretch - assuming
that baugh made such a claim, i would expect to see at least some
photographs and hands-on eyewitness accounts before i would
believe it.
Since we're on the subject of Baugh's work and ignoring
scientific data, I think this is a good time to bring up the
discoveries in the Paluxy River rock formations. before i do that
I'd like to define some words. when Glenn drills a well and finds
in the cuttings from 5000' "what appears to be the fossilized
remains of a Morton's 9-legged spider" and in the cuttings from
6000' "what appears to be the fossilized remains of a Reimers
7-toed trilobite" that is OBSERVATION or DATA. When you then
assign dates to these critters and postulate how they got there,
this is not data, it is INTERPRETATION or THEORY. In the Paluxy
River rock formations, the footprints of dinosaurs and what
appear to be human feet are found in the same rock layers. This
is OBSERVATION. Claiming that they are indeed human feet is
INTERPRETATION even tho we know of no other creature that has
ever existed that could have made them. But much more ridiculous
is to say as do some members of the "scientific community" that
they could not possibly be human because the evolutionary
timetable says that humans appeared after dinosaurs had been
extinct for millions of years. This is using unproved THEORY to
judge the OBSERVATION rather than using the observation to judge
the theory. Perhaps humans did live 5 million years ago as glenn
claims (i think) but regardless of when they lived or appeared,
these footprint observations indicate that humans and dinosaurs
lived at the same time.
Something else I don't know the answer to; just how accurately
can we measure the trace amounts of radioactive isotopes that we
use to date rocks? In some exponential decay calculations, a
slight amount of error in the amount of isotope can lead to a
huge error when using the amount of isotope to calculate an age.
This leads to a related question - just how accurately can we
calculate the half-life of a radioactive material to be in the
hundreds of thousands or millions of years from quantitative
analysis done over a period of a few decades?
thanks for subjecting me to your gross calculations on the ark
animals and their waste instead of scorn and ridicule.
joe reimers