Thread: the Reverse Theory

With reference to your reply which seems to have disappeared from this thread
The crucifix is there to remind us that ‘Sacrifices have to be made’ ... pure and simple.
To get us to where we are going and to cut an horrendous story short, not so long ago Mankind fell in stature beyond a point of no return and some simple stayed as animal, then crossbred to make up the ‘complete animal kingdom’ a time and place that can only be described as Hell.
To truly know’ and to have a crucifix on your wall, wow you would need to be pretty strong, the pain of a sinking heart/soul could kill.
Charles Darwin saw his evolution backwards, he based his findings on James Hutton’s and Charles Lyell old planet hypothesis, ‘We find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end’ and that was based on the principle of erosion ‘How long did it take that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach’
If he had seen his evolution from a young planet prospective, which it is, he would have written the reverse theory
I will endeavour to copy and paste a page from my book.

The geologic age of the earth is very well defined at 4.6 billion years old. Life appears in the fossil record at a little over 3 billion years in age.

The earth is not "young" in the manner you are implying, and the documented fossil progression from simple life forms in the early Cambrian through the modern species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is well known.

What evidence do you bring to the table to refute this?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The geologic age of the earth is very well defined at 4.6 billion years old. Life appears in the fossil record at a little over 3 billion years in age.

The earth is not "young" in the manner you are implying, and the documented fossil progression from simple life forms in the early Cambrian through the modern species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is well known.

What evidence do you bring to the table to refute this?

SAND … the geological understanding of erosion is wrong… plain and simple.
The age of this planet and the sums behind radio metric dating were built on geology, and geology is flawed. Geology gave us deep-time and from there onwards we presumed, wrongly, that everything was old.
It’s not how long it took a pebbled beach to look like a sandy beach but how long it took a sandy beach to look like a pebbled beach, ie, the principle of tidemark.
Understanding pebbles tells us how the pyramids were built, understanding how the pyramids were built gives us a different reading as to the age of the planet, and our being.

Radiometric dating is based on mathematics and chemistry, not on geology, and the dates have been correlated to other dating methodologies such as dendrochronology, icecore data, and lake varve counts.

And no rocks to not gain weight or grow in te manner you have indicated in prior threads.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

With reference to your reply which seems to have disappeared from this thread
The crucifix is there to remind us that ‘Sacrifices have to be made’ ... pure and simple.
To get us to where we are going and to cut an horrendous story short, not so long ago Mankind fell in stature beyond a point of no return and some simple stayed as animal, then crossbred to make up the ‘complete animal kingdom’ a time and place that can only be described as Hell.
To truly know’ and to have a crucifix on your wall, wow you would need to be pretty strong, the pain of a sinking heart/soul could kill.
Charles Darwin saw his evolution backwards, he based his findings on James Hutton’s and Charles Lyell old planet hypothesis, ‘We find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end’ and that was based on the principle of erosion ‘How long did it take that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach’
If he had seen his evolution from a young planet prospective, which it is, he would have written the reverse theory
I will endeavour to copy and paste a page from my book.

The problem is that to use a cross is not part of worshiping God with accuracy and truth. It is a pagan symbol, that comes from false religion. It really has nothing to do with following Jesus.
As for Darwin he was man in a isolated place coming up with ideas. It seem possible to him, but even he knew that researchers after him would have to find , better evidence than he had. Now with many more fossil found, they still don't support his ideas. The real problem is that the scientists jumped on the Darwin band wagon without , consulting the evidence. Now how do they get off of it? Can you imagine them saying they have been wrong all these years. I think they will have to go down with the ship.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The geologic age of the earth is very well defined at 4.6 billion years old. Life appears in the fossil record at a little over 3 billion years in age.

The earth is not "young" in the manner you are implying, and the documented fossil progression from simple life forms in the early Cambrian through the modern species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is well known.

What evidence do you bring to the table to refute this?

I have no evidence to refute this.
Because the bible creation account gives no idea on the length of time the creation took.
I don't know about the scientists claims on their dating, if is is accurate or not. But it is pretty obvious that it did take along period of time.
The scientific evidence also tells us that the preparing the earth for life took a long time, but in a relatively short period of time all life was created.
The evidence supports creation. Becasue really the earth would have had to be prepared, for the life that would be coming.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Radiometric dating is based on mathematics and chemistry, not on geology, and the dates have been correlated to other dating methodologies such as dendrochronology, icecore data, and lake varve counts.

And no rocks to not gain weight or grow in te manner you have indicated in prior threads.

You also have to consider the many changes the earth would have to go through before life could survive here. The creation account goes into this.
How is dating changed with large amounts of radiation,or limited amounts for example? There could be many unknowns that the scientists have not even considered.
An example of this is their trip to Mars to find Martians. They jumped up and down when they found water. But sneaked away when they found out the soil would kill any start to life. Well... Mars was not prepared first, for life. Scientists do not have much of an understanding about all of these things.

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Even if the scientists are correct on the date of the universe, the Cambrian period where most life was created happened in the last 7/8 of that time period. So life is relatively new on this earth.

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Even if the scientists are correct on the date of the universe, the Cambrian period where most life was created happened in the last 7/8 of that time period. So life is relatively new on this earth.

life was NOT created in the Cambrian.

What's a few billion years between friends, huh?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Even if the scientists are correct on the date of the universe, the Cambrian period where most life was created happened in the last 7/8 of that time period. So life is relatively new on this earth.

life was NOT created in the Cambrian.

Of course it was.

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

So in reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists call this period 'the Cambrian explosion'.

This is exactly what you would expect from creation.



In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” So does this support Darwin's ideas? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla."

Biology and Philosophy, “The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335

Try looking at current information on The Cambrian and the evolutionary processes that happened them, rather then quote mining out of date information. Modern in these circumstances is Phylum level groups, not genera and species. Its general body plans and many of the groups that are so often misquoted as having suddenly appeared have now had earlier fossils described that show a more gradual progression.

And they still were NOT created in the Cambrian in the manner you are implying.

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Even if the scientists are correct on the date of the universe, the Cambrian period where most life was created happened in the last 7/8 of that time period. So life is relatively new on this earth.

life was NOT created in the Cambrian.

Of course it was.

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

So in reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists call this period 'the Cambrian explosion'.

This is exactly what you would expect from creation.

It's also what we expect from evolution where even a tiny mutational advantage say by less than 1% can completely take over its forbears in less than 1000 generations, a geological flash of an eye, and one so short the change of catching the intermediate fossils would be near zero.

But of course I know you've probably never read “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," and given your demonstrated lack of evolution so far on this forum, wouldn't understand it anyhow. But here's a quote from the very same book.
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
As you can see it's not suggesting a replacement of the idea of evolution, if fact's arguing for it quite vigorously, but only supplementing the theory with the idea that based on the fossil record (as of 30+ years ago) not all evolution is as necessarily gradual as Darwin might have envisioned.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

SAND … the geological understanding of erosion is wrong… plain and simple.

The process of erosion has been observed: in the field, in the laboratory, in the rock record. Millions of individual observations, in hundreds of thousands of studies, by tens of thousands of individuals, in thousands of environments all confirm this process is real. To deny this requires an Guiness Book of Records' level of self delusion. Do you have a single piece of observational data that supports your absurd claim?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

We could whatif in that manner till we have no options left.

At this point there is absolutely no evidence of changes in radiometric decay rates.

Life has been in existence for more then 3 billion years, so no life was not a quick happening.

Even if the scientists are correct on the date of the universe, the Cambrian period where most life was created happened in the last 7/8 of that time period. So life is relatively new on this earth.

life was NOT created in the Cambrian.

Of course it was.

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”
Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.

So in reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.
In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists call this period 'the Cambrian explosion'.

This is exactly what you would expect from creation.

It's also what we expect from evolution where even a tiny mutational advantage say by less than 1% can completely take over its forbears in less than 1000 generations, a geological flash of an eye, and one so short the change of catching the intermediate fossils would be near zero.

But of course I know you've probably never read “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," and given your demonstrated lack of evolution so far on this forum, wouldn't understand it anyhow. But here's a quote from the very same book.
"Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."
As you can see it's not suggesting a replacement of the idea of evolution, if fact's arguing for it quite vigorously, but only supplementing the theory with the idea that based on the fossil record (as of 30+ years ago) not all evolution is as necessarily gradual as Darwin might have envisioned.

I use scientist that believe in 'evolution' because some think that has more creditability , than one that stands up for what the evidence shows.
But... what he is saying is that the evidence does not support the theory of how life should have 'evolved'.

It is the evidence that we want to look at. The evidence does not agree with 'evolution', and really before you could even get to this point to have to show that a cell could just happen on it's own. Otherwise 'evolution' is just a myth. "Evolution' is about using already established life. If the scientists can not establish the beginnings of life. How can he supposed what happened after?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Try looking at current information on The Cambrian and the evolutionary processes that happened them, rather then quote mining out of date information. Modern in these circumstances is Phylum level groups, not genera and species. Its general body plans and many of the groups that are so often misquoted as having suddenly appeared have now had earlier fossils described that show a more gradual progression.

And they still were NOT created in the Cambrian in the manner you are implying.

You would need evidence, to show that creation did not happen at that time.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

SAND … the geological understanding of erosion is wrong… plain and simple.

The process of erosion has been observed: in the field, in the laboratory, in the rock record. Millions of individual observations, in hundreds of thousands of studies, by tens of thousands of individuals, in thousands of environments all confirm this process is real. To deny this requires an Guiness Book of Records' level of self delusion. Do you have a single piece of observational data that supports your absurd claim?

The bible, or do I, have any problem with long periods of time, to get the earth like it is now.
I am not sure about the scientists dating methods. Are they accurate? No one can say for sure.

I definitely agree that it must have taken a long time. Even if you just use the life span of animals over the many many generations of those. 6,000 years is nowhere close to the time needed, for the universe or life.

Originally Posted by epignosis

I am not sure about the scientists dating methods. Are they accurate? No one can say for sure.

yes they are, usually to within an accuracy of 1%
granted that on time periods 1 billion years that's still 10 million years, but that's physics for - it doesn't care for human preference

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by epignosis

I am not sure about the scientists dating methods. Are they accurate? No one can say for sure.

yes they are, usually to within an accuracy of 1%
granted that on time periods 1 billion years that's still 10 million years, but that's physics for - it doesn't care for human preference

The question is how do they know it is accurate?
What methods of dating do you consider accurate?

What methods do you consider inaccurate and how do you decide they are inaccurate?

Originally Posted by epignosis

What methods of dating do you consider accurate?

all the methods that are currently in use by geologists

Originally Posted by epignosis

The question is how do they know it is accurate?

several independent ways of measuring geologic time agree with one another

imo the problem is that you're totally uniformed about dating methods in geology and archeology - how about reading up on geochronology in wikipedia ?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

SAND … the geological understanding of erosion is wrong… plain and simple.

The process of erosion has been observed: in the field, in the laboratory, in the rock record. Millions of individual observations, in hundreds of thousands of studies, by tens of thousands of individuals, in thousands of environments all confirm this process is real. To deny this requires an Guiness Book of Records' level of self delusion. Do you have a single piece of observational data that supports your absurd claim?

I have written a book of explanations, the most noticeable are coloured layers which are scuffed at the edges exposing previous layers underneath. Small fossils within the pebble show the pebble has formed around the little critter. Pebbles mounded together clearly show an input of seacrap.
Sunny, calm seashores have sand whilst rough dirty seashores have pebbles. This should be the other way around according to you.
Sand has come onto the shore, not the other way around, sand is our missing landscape from places like the Grand Canyon, where do you think all that missing landscape debris has gone to?
There are too many examples, read the book and I’ll give you a money back guarantee I’m right and science is wrong.

Originally Posted by epignosis

I definitely agree that it must have taken a long time. Even if you just use the life span of animals over the many many generations of those. 6,000 years is nowhere close to the time needed, for the universe or life.

6000 years is a lot lot closer then the scientific calculation of 4.6 billion years … by far!
What makes you think the planet is old anyway? Oh! Science

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by epignosis

I definitely agree that it must have taken a long time. Even if you just use the life span of animals over the many many generations of those. 6,000 years is nowhere close to the time needed, for the universe or life.

6000 years is a lot lot closer then the scientific calculation of 4.6 billion years … by far!
What makes you think the planet is old anyway? Oh! Science

I think the scientists have really opened up allot about the make up of the universe and earth, and life. From the bibles writings there really is nothing said about the early life that was on the earth. Or even how long the creation process was.
The reason we can even talk about these things as cells and fossils etc. is that the scientists, have uncovered this. So don't get me wrong the scientists have done and learned some amazing things.
The only real problem, with scientists is that in understanding life and how it came about, is that they do not use the scientific method and have a predetermined out come, without the evidence to support it.
An other, is that the scientists, have given man the ability to ruin the earth. A 150 years ago I could even improve the earth, working with the land and planting trees etc. Now I can produce nothing but I can leave garbage that lasts 1,000 years. I can also poison the land and life.

Sedimentary Rock Dating Method Wrong by a Factor of Two (Jan., 2008)

Hot Springs Microbes Hold Key To Dating: Sedimentary RocksA form of sedimentary rock, calcium carbonate is the most abundant mineral precipitated on the surface of Earth, and a great recorder of life. Now scientists, studying microbial communities and the growth of sedimentary rock at Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park, have made a surprising discovery about the geological record of life and the environment. Their discovery could affect how certain sequences of sedimentary rock are dated, and how scientists might search for evidence of life on other planets(ScienceDaily, Jan. 22, 2008). “We found microbes change the rate at which calcium carbonate precipitates, and that rate controls the chemistry and shape of calcium carbonate crystals,” said Bruce Fouke, a professor of geology and of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Illinois. In fact, the precipitation rate can more than double when microbes are present, Fouke and his colleagues report in a paper accepted for publication in the Geological Society of America Bulletin. The researchers’ findings imply changes in calcium carbonate mineralization rates in the rock record may have resulted from changes in local microbial biomass concentrations throughout geologic history. A form of sedimentary rock, calcium carbonate is the most abundant mineral precipitated on the surface of Earth, and a great recorder of life. [PhysOrg, Jan 22, 2008]
Here again, previously trusted assumptions about most common sedimentary rock were off by more than a factor of two. What other untested dating assumptions will be overturned in the future?


Ancient Precambrian suddenly became young Pleistocene (!) (January 2007)

The bulletin of the Geological Society of America started 2007 with a bang (the exclamation mark "!" is called a "bang" in computerese). Titles of scientific papers rarely contain the exclamation mark. However, the paper by Donald R. Lowe (Stanford) and Gary R. Byerly (Louisiana State) does contain the exclamation mark to convey something of the shock they must have felt when they had to reclassify a rock formation from one end of the geologic column to the other.
Until this year, the Barberton deposits in South Africa were confidently dated as among the most ancient geological formations on earth to a supposed age of 3.55 billion years (Archean), e.g.
The 3.55-3.22 Ga Barberton Greenstone Belt, South Africa and Swaziland, and surrounding coeval plutons can be divided into four tectono-stratigraphic blocks that become younger toward the northwest. Each block formed through early mafic to ultramafic volcanism (Onverwacht Group), probably in oceanic extensional, island, or plateau settings. ... Evolution of the Barberton Belt may reflect an Early Archean plate tectonic cycle that characterized a world with few or no large, stabilized blocks of sialic crust. [Donald R. Lowe, Stanford University, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, "Accretionary history of the Archean Barberton greenstone belt (3.55-3.22 Ga), Southern Africa", Geology, December 1994, v. 22; no. 12; p. 1099-1102) However, the latest evidence indicates promotes the supposedly ancient Barberton layers to the most recent geological layer of the the Pleistocene epoch (putatively dated to have begun about 1.8 million years ago).
Irregular bodies of goethite and hematite, termed ironstone pods, in the Barberton greenstone belt, South Africa, have been previously interpreted as the Earth's most ancient submarine hydrothermal vent deposits and have yielded putative evidence about Archean hydrothermal systems, ocean composition and temperature, and early life. This report summarizes geologic, sedimentological, and petrographic evidence from three widely separated areas showing that the ironstone was deposited on and directly below the modern ground surface by active groundwater and spring systems, probably during periods of higher rainfall in the Pleistocene.... These deposits represent a remarkable iron oxide-depositing Quaternary hydrologic system but provide no information about conditions or life on the early Earth. [Lowe DR, and Byerly GR (2007), “Ironstone bodies of the Barberton greenstone belt, South Africa: Products of a Cenozoic hydrological system, not Archean hydrothermal vents!” GSA Bulletin, January 2007, Vol. 119, No. 1 pp. 65-87, DOI: 10.1130/B25997.1, emphasis added] Evolutionists regularly pointed to these rocks to make up stories about the origin of primitive life forms. Now we discover that these rocks "provide no information about conditions or life on the early Earth". See, for example, Earth & Life (Struik Publishers, 2005) written by experts on the Barenton layers at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. Instead of these stories about ancient layers and ancient life, the rocks could be forming today.
So that's the big bang of 2007. The most ancient layers are suddenly demoted from the ancient age of about 3.5 billion years down to no more than a supposed age of at most 1.8 million years (or about 0.6% of its previous age). That's right, the age was off by three orders of magnitude.

Dating methods - Toriah.com




So how reliable are the dating methods? What will overturned in the future?

Originally Posted by epignosis

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by epignosis

I definitely agree that it must have taken a long time. Even if you just use the life span of animals over the many many generations of those. 6,000 years is nowhere close to the time needed, for the universe or life.

6000 years is a lot lot closer then the scientific calculation of 4.6 billion years … by far!
What makes you think the planet is old anyway? Oh! Science

I think the scientists have really opened up allot about the make up of the universe and earth, and life.

I sincerely concur, apart from the first calculation … Where has all that sand come from? And how long did it take that pebbled beach to look like that sandy beach whereas, it should have been ‘how long did it take that sandy beach to look like that pebbled beach’ science is an aeon or two out, and that’s only the first page

I still dont understand your assertion that rocks grow

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

I still dont understand your assertion that rocks grow

Not rocks, Beach Pebbles, look at the shoreline as a tidemark, wet dry, wet dry, wet dry. Be it wash basin or sea basin the process is the same

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What methods do you consider inaccurate and how do you decide they are inaccurate?

Pebbles and Pyramids, Sand and Missing Landscapes, Limestone, all give credence to science adding too many noughts to their deep-time findings, including radioactive decay. This planet is young, very young

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What methods do you consider inaccurate and how do you decide they are inaccurate?

Pebbles and Pyramids, Sand and Missing Landscapes, Limestone, all give credence to science adding too many noughts to their deep-time findings, including radioactive decay. This planet is young, very young

Come on, that's a useless post. Explain.

[/QUOTE]Come on, that's a useless post. Explain.[/QUOTE]

It’s a useless post if you have not been following it – I’m saying, and can prove, science/geology/sand, is flawed. Science has built their house on sand and it’s about to come tumbling down

I have written a book of explanations, the most noticeable are coloured layers which are scuffed at the edges exposing previous layers underneath. Small fossils within the pebble show the pebble has formed around the little critter. Pebbles mounded together clearly show an input of seacrap.
Sunny, calm seashores have sand whilst rough dirty seashores have pebbles. This should be the other way around according to you.
Sand has come onto the shore, not the other way around, sand is our missing landscape from places like the Grand Canyon, where do you think all that missing landscape debris has gone to?
There are too many examples, read the book and I’ll give you a money back guarantee I’m right and science is wrong.

Are you referring to this?

Let me make this clear. This is a discussion forum. It is not ok to come and make a bunch of absurd claims and then refuse to explain how you came up with it, while simply telling us to read your book. That is simply not acceptable. Understand?

You sound very ungrateful

Huh? Ungrateful that you have decided to grace our forum with your enlightened revelation? Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Come on, that's a useless post. Explain.

It’s a useless post if you have not been following it – I’m saying, and can prove, science/geology/sand, is flawed. Science has built their house on sand and it’s about to come tumbling down

ok, put your money where your mouth is then - prove it rather than dangling a carrot that is forever out of reach

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

You sound very ungrateful

Ungrateful for what? We haven't seen a single post from you as yet that's even been about science.

Christopher- what is the difference between pebbles, sand, and rocks?

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I have written a book of explanations, the most noticeable are coloured layers which are scuffed at the edges exposing previous layers underneath. Small fossils within the pebble show the pebble has formed around the little critter. Pebbles mounded together clearly show an input of seacrap.
Sunny, calm seashores have sand whilst rough dirty seashores have pebbles. This should be the other way around according to you.
Sand has come onto the shore, not the other way around, sand is our missing landscape from places like the Grand Canyon, where do you think all that missing landscape debris has gone to?
There are too many examples, read the book and I’ll give you a money back guarantee I’m right and science is wrong.

Christopher, I previously called you a charlatan. I should like to retract that statement and apologise for it. Technically, you are a charlatan, in that you are claiming knowledge that you do not actually possess. However, I now accept that you actually believe the nonsense your are spouting. But implicit within the meaning of charlatan is the sense of an intent to deceive. I do not believe you are trying to deceive. I think you are sincere. It's just that this sincerity is accompanied by abyssal ignorance.

Let's just take one simple statement "Sand has come onto the shore, not the other way around". Well, duh! Of course sand has 'come on to the shore'. If you had any education you would have been taught, for example, about longshore drift in your second year of geography at secondary school. While some beach sand may be derived from the erosion of adjacent rocks, the majority is - as you suggest - derived from much more distant weathering and erosion, with the sand grains transported by rivers (primarily) and then by wave action and currents to its present location.

However, during that process of transport the grains, rubbing against each other, are steadily abraded and reduced in size. This is the exact opposite of what you claim, yet it is what is wholly supported by the observations I mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Huh? Ungrateful that you have decided to grace our forum with your enlightened revelation? Are you serious?

No need to be rude Kalster in a free world we are all entitled to an opinion, I’m saying sand has come onto the shores whereas you are saying sand is washed away from the shores, there is a vast amount of difference in timing.
I’m saying sand was washed onto the shore and has come from places like the Grand Canyon, and each tide leaves behind a layer of scum that dries onto the sand sticking many grains together, the next tide fills the divot and so-on and so-forth. The heavier they become the further they are pushed up the beach
Darwin and nearly every other person who comes up with an unconventional idea is blasted and ridiculed and I’m sure (and hopefully) I won’t be the last. I have sold over a thousand books with no negative feedback, only great ones.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Huh? Ungrateful that you have decided to grace our forum with your enlightened revelation? Are you serious?

No need to be rude Kalster in a free world we are all entitled to an opinion, I’m saying sand has come onto the shores whereas you are saying sand is washed away from the shores, there is a vast amount of difference in timing.
I’m saying sand was washed onto the shore and has come from places like the Grand Canyon, and each tide leaves behind a layer of scum that dries onto the sand sticking many grains together, the next tide fills the divot and so-on and so-forth. The heavier they become the further they are pushed up the beach
Darwin and nearly every other person who comes up with an unconventional idea is blasted and ridiculed and I’m sure (and hopefully) I won’t be the last. I have sold over a thousand books with no negative feedback, only great ones.

Who is making the statement that sand is "washed away from the shores"? This statement is in contrast to the geology classes I have taken.

Who is saying it did NOT come from erosional processes such as the creation of the grand canyon, as again this is contrary to the geology classes and indeed elementary school earth science units.

[/QUOTE]Who is making the statement that sand is "washed away from the shores"? This statement is in contrast to the geology classes I have taken.

Who is saying it did NOT come from erosional processes such as the creation of the grand canyon, as again this is contrary to the geology classes and indeed elementary school earth science units.[/QUOTE]I stand corrected, I thought you thought that solid rock gets broken down by the wind rain and frost, where solid rock reduce to boulders, boulders reduce to pebbles, pebbles reduce to grit and grit gets reduced to sand.
Are you saying the erosion cycle stops at sand?
According to the Pyramids’ sand was produced whilst places like the Grand Canyon were mud-like

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Christopher- what is the difference between pebbles, sand, and rocks?

Pebbles will increase in size if located on a tidal shoreline. Sand derived from what was once was living. Rock derived from extreme heat

Originally Posted by Christopher ball

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Who is making the statement that sand is "washed away from the shores"? This statement is in contrast to the geology classes I have taken.

Who is saying it did NOT come from erosional processes such as the creation of the grand canyon, as again this is contrary to the geology classes and indeed elementary school earth science units.

I stand corrected, I thought you thought that solid rock gets broken down by the wind rain and frost, where solid rock reduce to boulders, boulders reduce to pebbles, pebbles reduce to grit and grit gets reduced to sand.

Originally Posted by Christopher ball

Are you saying the erosion cycle stops at sand?

This is what happens, and that is what has been observed hundreds of thousands of times over. No the erosion cycle does not stop at sand. sand erodes to stilt, which erodes, clays, which eventually reduces to the elements that compose the mineral the particle was composed of.

This is of course dependent on the particles not being subducted or integrated in some other geologic process and made into sandstones, shales, slates etc...

Originally Posted by Christopher ball

According to the Pyramids’ sand was produced whilst places like the Grand Canyon were mud-like

The pyramids are made of limestone which was quarried in the area. While some of the formations exposed in the canyon were mudstones, many were not, making this comment rather strange.
yardstickstratcolumn.jpg

Originally Posted by Christopher ball

Pebbles will increase in size if located on a tidal shoreline. Sand derived from what was once was living. Rock derived from extreme heat

Sand is a term used for a specific rock particle size, specifically from 0.0625 mm to 2 mm in diameter. There is no process by which sand can expand in diameter.

Who is making the statement that sand is "washed away from the shores"? This statement is in contrast to the geology classes I have taken.

Who is saying it did NOT come from erosional processes such as the creation of the grand canyon, as again this is contrary to the geology classes and indeed elementary school earth science units.

I stand corrected, I thought you thought that solid rock gets broken down by the wind rain and frost, where solid rock reduce to boulders, boulders reduce to pebbles, pebbles reduce to grit and grit gets reduced to sand.
Are you saying the erosion cycle stops at sand?
According to the Pyramids’ sand was produced whilst places like the Grand Canyon were mud-like

Your entire thesis is disjointed, ambiguous and contradictory. Here is a simplified summary of how existing rocks come to produce material for sediments that may later become new rocks. I don't think that solid rock gets broken down by the wind rain and frost , I know this is the case. There are a multitude of studies that confirms this is so. We can see it happening. We understand the detailed physics and chemistry of the process. It is a four part process:
1. Weathering - the constituent components of the rock (individual crystals or grains) are physically separated and in some cases chemically altered.
2. These altered constituents are removed from the body of the rock through combined effects of gravity, rian, flowing water, ice, wind, or biota. Some go into solution, or suspension in the water. Thus, from the outset, while some constituents may be boulder sized, others are microscopic clay particles, or even dissolved ions, and potentially everything else in between. The exact range of particle sizes and types depends upon the original rock composition and structure, the kind of weathering taking place, and the erosive agent.
3. These constituents are now transported, typically by water, but wind, ice and gravity creep can all play a part. During this process futher erosion and possibly further chemical alteration of the individual particles occurs. The extent of these changes depends on the energy of the environment, its chemical character, time and the original character of the particle.
4. When the energy of the transport medium is no longer sufficient to support the particle it will settle and be deposited.

These stages have been throughly analysed, studied, quantified and documented. Your ignorance of this work is frankly appalling. I recommend you seek out one or more these basic works and study them thoroughly before engaging in further mind numbing nonsense.

Prothero and Schwab Sedimentary Geology W.H.Freeman and Company 1996 ISBN 0-7167-2726-9
Boggs Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy Prentice Hall 2006 ISBN 0131547283

And, if you can find an old copy, it is difficult to beat this one:
F.J.Pettijohn Sedimentary Rocks Any edition Harper and Row

As to your remarks on the pyramids, I find myself wondering if you have actually seen them. It doesn't appear so. Your entire ludicrous speculation seems to have been conjured out of your imagination with total disregard for what can be observed and has been observed in the real world. It is not too late for you to come to your senses. I'd hate to see you waste the rest of your life.

In your reply to paleoichneum you make three statements that I cannot leave unremarked.

Pebbles will increase in size if located on a tidal shoreline

In some instance - a small minority - concretions may build up on pebbles. Such additions are very distinctive. their mineralogy and structure differ radically from the host pebble. In the vast majority of cases the pebbles is eroded in its position on the tidal shoreline.

Sand derived from what was once was living

The vast majority of sand consists of quartz grains. There are notable exceptions and in some parts of the world sand is composed of broken fragments of shells of marine organisms. This is not the case for most sand on the planet. Most of it has been derived from acidic igneous rocks, or quartz rich metamorphic rocks, or pre-existing sandstones.

Rock derived from extreme heat

Diagenesis, the process that converts sediments into rocks, does not require extreme heat. Some changes are related to temperature, but not extreme temperatures. Time, pressure and the composition of interstitial fluids play an equal or more important role.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

There is no process by which sand can expand in diameter.

Technically this is incorrect. During the compaction process the point loading at grain to grain contacts of quartz crystals is very high. This can cause the quartz to go into solution. The concentration gradient causes the dissolved quartz to move away from the contact point. With the pressure constraint removed it deposits itself on the nearest quartz surface. In this way one grain may grow at the expense of another. It is an important mechanism for the reduction of porosity of sandstone with depth.

However, it is wholly different from the expansion in size that Christopher is proposing. It is very limited in scope. It occurs at depth, not on beaches. It is observable. It is consistent with our knowledge of physics and chemistry. None of these characteristics apply to Chrisopher's idea.

Pebbles get bigger, they’re formed by the process of tidemark, easily seen when looked for. Which throws ALL your text book assumption into oblivion, and even more so, the timing thereof … Sorry’ but this planet is Not as old as you think it is! When we built the pyramids the limestone was the perfect building material, perfect to cut (with copper) and perfect to manhandle.

Thank you Ophiolite for your in-depth reply … however your remark “It is not too late for you to come to your senses. I'd hate to see you waste the rest of your life” ... made me laugh. Likewise springs to mind.
Try reading Reverse Theory 2010 ISBN 978-0-9564761-0-4

Christopher the textbooks do not contain assumptions. They contain conclusions based upon countless observations. Hundreds of researchers have noted that pebbles get smaller over time. Thousands, indeed likely tens of thousands, have observed it, but not bothered to comment on it since it is so well established. Do you seriously maintain that out of these thousands you are the single person who has the wisdom, the perception, to see things differently and be right? The odds are wholly against it.

The age of the planet is confirmed by many independent lines of evidence. It is as old I think. There is simply no issue there. You are trying to develop a theory of great originality with a primary school knowledge set. It won't work. You haven't the slightest idea how the various methods of radioactive dating work. You have no notion of how to estimate sedimentation rates over time. You are ignorant of the sedimentological record. You are apparently unaware of the fossil record and its revelance to the process of evolution and hence of the age of the Earth. Your blindness is stunning.

You still have not addressed any of the specific points raised by myself and others. Do you think that helps to convince anyone? Just repeating your beliefs like a mantra might aid digestion, but it won't sell your story.

Limestone is still easy to cut. Copper is more than adequate to the task. Moving large blocks of limestone is not that difficult when you have some smart guys and a large population.

Christopher, have you ever gone on a pebbly beach and seen how bits get chipped of pebbles ? you can go on Brighton beach and actually observe this !
would that not mean pebbles get broken by wave action ?

the only common examples of accretion that readily spring to mind are oolites and calcrete, and neither happen at or near a pebbly or sandy beach

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Christopher the textbooks do not contain assumptions. They contain conclusions based upon countless observations. Hundreds of researchers have noted that pebbles get smaller over time. Thousands, indeed likely tens of thousands, have observed it, but not bothered to comment on it since it is so well established. Do you seriously maintain that out of these thousands you are the single person who has the wisdom, the perception, to see things differently and be right? The odds are wholly against it.

The age of the planet is confirmed by many independent lines of evidence. It is as old I think. There is simply no issue there. You are trying to develop a theory of great originality with a primary school knowledge set. It won't work. You haven't the slightest idea how the various methods of radioactive dating work. You have no notion of how to estimate sedimentation rates over time. You are ignorant of the sedimentological record. You are apparently unaware of the fossil record and its revelance to the process of evolution and hence of the age of the Earth. Your blindness is stunning.

You still have not addressed any of the specific points raised by myself and others. Do you think that helps to convince anyone? Just repeating your beliefs like a mantra might aid digestion, but it won't sell your story.

Limestone is still easy to cut. Copper is more than adequate to the task. Moving large blocks of limestone is not that difficult when you have some smart guys and a large population.

I know for certain beach pebbles get bigger, I have studied them for more years then I care to remember, living on Brighton beach has made my studies rather easy and enjoyable … although quite mind-bending when considering the outcome. The outcome being, you have too many noughts on your calculation … Ouch!
We will just have to beg to differ!
Limestone was laid in great swathes and not as sedimentary as once thought. The hardening of limestone brought about the dinosaurs demise, which was not that long ago.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist. You have demonstrated you don't know how to think as one.

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist.

I feel honoured even to be classed as one ... many thankyou's xx

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist.

I feel honoured even to be classed as one ... many thankyou's xx

You are the king of England good sir.

How would the deposition of limestone, a marine calcium carbonate, affect the dinosaurs, terrestrial animals. Also why do limestones so often have only fossils form much older time periods, such as the carboniferous?

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist.

I feel honoured even to be classed as one ... many thankyou's xx

You are the king of England good sir.

Funny you should say that because I do feel rather special knowing what I know. Being the first to know how the Pyramids were built, knowing this planet is only a matter of a few years old, relatively speaking, knowing nature is in the process of building its own sea defences, knowing an afterlife exists, etc etc, has a feel good factor, although rather mind-bending.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

How would the deposition of limestone, a marine calcium carbonate, affect the dinosaurs, terrestrial animals. Also why do limestones so often have only fossils form much older time periods, such as the carboniferous?

Before it was limestone it was a living mass of sea organisms, it was not sedimentary over aeons, it was laid in great swathes from a suffocated sea, the primal soup scenario. And because science thinks the planet is older than it really is, your ‘older time periods’ are only a matter of a few years.

how few is only a few?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

how few is only a few?

I’ve been working on that for years, how long did it take limestone to harden?
Six thousand years ago limestone was the perfect building material, dinosaurs encased in what was once wet limestone, sand forming from such places as the Grand Canyon, pebbles laying on the seabed, (although that could be down to iceages) Mankind falling beyond a point of no return, would suggest somewhere between sixty thousand years and two hundred thousand years

when you say that "limestone is hardening", is that a bit like cement setting then ?

and why are all fossils sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist.

I feel honoured even to be classed as one ... many thankyou's xx

You are the king of England good sir.

Funny you should say that because I do feel rather special knowing what I know. Being the first to know how the Pyramids were built, knowing this planet is only a matter of a few years old, relatively speaking, knowing nature is in the process of building its own sea defences, knowing an afterlife exists, etc etc, has a feel good factor, although rather mind-bending.

Summarizing, then, we assume that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort can be defined in such a way as to impose irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: an important property of these three types of EC is not subject to a descriptive fact. Presumably, any associated supporting element delimits the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). It must be emphasized, once again, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is necessary to impose an interpretation on problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Of course, the systematic use of complex symbols is not quite equivalent to the traditional practice of grammarians.

Originally Posted by marnixR

when you say that "limestone is hardening", is that a bit like cement setting then ?

You can look up cement in the dictionary to see they are one of the same. However, the forming stone would have started as a honeycombed and porous structure. Honeycombed because the draining waters washed away the soft tissue, which later turned to oil? Leaving an absorbent stone which soak-up the atmospheric debris that was washed down by the rain following a catastrophe of biblical proportions?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

and why are all fossils sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

Perhaps it’s because science thinks the planet is older than it really is?

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by billiards

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I know for certain ...

And with your first words you lose all credibility as a scientist.

I feel honoured even to be classed as one ... many thankyou's xx

You are the king of England good sir.

Funny you should say that because I do feel rather special knowing what I know. Being the first to know how the Pyramids were built, knowing this planet is only a matter of a few years old, relatively speaking, knowing nature is in the process of building its own sea defences, knowing an afterlife exists, etc etc, has a feel good factor, although rather mind-bending.

Summarizing, then, we assume that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort can be defined in such a way as to impose irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. We will bring evidence in favor of the following thesis: an important property of these three types of EC is not subject to a descriptive fact. Presumably, any associated supporting element delimits the extended c-command discussed in connection with (34). It must be emphasized, once again, that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is necessary to impose an interpretation on problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Of course, the systematic use of complex symbols is not quite equivalent to the traditional practice of grammarians.

Wow! and in english means? ...

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

and why are all fossils sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

Perhaps it’s because science thinks the planet is older than it really is?

That is not an answer, and in fact does not address the question posed at all, it just tries to deflect.

How do you explain all fossils being sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by marnixR

when you say that "limestone is hardening", is that a bit like cement setting then ?

You can look up cement in the dictionary to see they are one of the same. However, the forming stone would have started as a honeycombed and porous structure. Honeycombed because the draining waters washed away the soft tissue, which later turned to oil? Leaving an absorbent stone which soak-up the atmospheric debris that was washed down by the rain following a catastrophe of biblical proportions?

where did all the waters that would be required for the flooding of the globe to above Mt Everest come from and go to?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

and why are all fossils sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

Perhaps it’s because science thinks the planet is older than it really is?

That is not an answer, and in fact does not address the question posed at all, it just tries to deflect.

How do you explain all fossils being sorted stratgraphically by age rather then by rock type?

It’s because I agree with science, apart from the timing thereof

And how do you determine the timing, as opposed to the real science used to derive the 4.5 GY age of the earth used by scientists?

where did all the waters that would be required for the flooding of the globe to above Mt Everest come from and go to?

As you well know Mt Everest was pushed up by tectonic activity and I can only surmise all the water on the planet came from condensation, ie, when hot planet met cold outer-space, and a twist from planet axis brought about a flood of biblical proportions.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

And how do you determine the timing, as opposed to the real science used to derive the 4.5 GY age of the earth used by scientists?

Try to keep up Wayne … Geology is flawed, sand has Not come from pebble or solid rock erosion, ie, they get bigger not smaller, ie, tidemark.

Ah, yes, surmising instead of science....

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Ah, yes, surmising instead of science....

It would seem science has done its fair share of surmising “absolutely everything” to do with the timing of this planet and the origins of Mankind is seriously flawed … its gobsmacking how wrong science has become … WOW! It Beggars Belief

Where did the volume of water come from and more importantly where did it go to?

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Ah, yes, surmising instead of science....

It would seem science has done its fair share of surmising “absolutely everything” to do with the timing of this planet and the origins of Mankind is seriously flawed … its gobsmacking how wrong science has become … WOW! It Beggars Belief

you ahve yet to supply and verifiable evidence that there is anything wrong with the dating techniques currently used. Occams Razor says that the myriad of different methods used can't all be wrong to the same massive amount that your assertions say them must be.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

And how do you determine the timing, as opposed to the real science used to derive the 4.5 GY age of the earth used by scientists?

Try to keep up Wayne … Geology is flawed, sand has Not come from pebble or solid rock erosion, ie, they get bigger not smaller, ie, tidemark.

So answer the question! How do you determine the dating of the rock record?

"God told me so" is not an answer; I want the science.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

It’s because I agree with science, apart from the timing thereof

Nothing you have posted 'agrees with science'. Your fatuous claims about the character and evolution of rocks are totally debunked by a library and a half full of research. I understand that you have a considerable time invested in developing your ideas, unfortunately your ideas are purest crap. They have no saving graces of any kind. I really do appeal to you to do some reading of proper works such as the references I provided you with earlier. If you are prepared to approach the material with an open mind then you will see wherein your errors lie. I and others here would be happy to aid you in that endeavour, but if you continue to insist upon your silly 'theory' you will encounter dismissiveness and ultimately aggressive rudeness.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Where did the volume of water come from and more importantly where did it go to?

I can only repeat what I said earlier “When hot planet met cold outer-space” from a condensation effect after the big bang. You ask “where has all the water has gone” One would think to the sea

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

It’s because I agree with science, apart from the timing thereof

Nothing you have posted 'agrees with science'. Your fatuous claims about the character and evolution of rocks are totally debunked by a library and a half full of research. I understand that you have a considerable time invested in developing your ideas, unfortunately your ideas are purest crap. They have no saving graces of any kind. I really do appeal to you to do some reading of proper works such as the references I provided you with earlier. If you are prepared to approach the material with an open mind then you will see wherein your errors lie. I and others here would be happy to aid you in that endeavour, but if you continue to insist upon your silly 'theory' you will encounter dismissiveness and ultimately aggressive rudeness.

See post 40 ... I can't help it if you don't understand what a tidemark is

So answer the question! How do you determine the dating of the rock record?

"God told me so" is not an answer; I want the science.

I have no interest in determining the rocks age/record … what I am saying is geology is flawed because pebbles get bigger not smaller, which tells us how the pyramids were built, which tells us … WOW!

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I have no interest in determining the rocks age/record … what I am saying is geology is flawed because pebbles get bigger not smaller, which tells us how the pyramids were built, which tells us … WOW!

first of all, any theory worth its salt needs to explain all of the evidence + be consistent with that evidence
if you claim to have evidence that contradicts radiometric dating then there's an anomaly that needs explaining - you can't just to some hand waving and pretend the contradictory evidence isn't there

secondly, i still haven't seen any clear-cut evidence that pebbles get bigger, just your assertions that it is so
what IS your evidence that pebbles on the beach grow, when i can see that PARTIAL fossils are enclosed in them ? especially since accretion only happens under certain circumstances which don't exist on a pebbly beach

Christopher, do you understand that the volume of water needed to cover the earth as you are indicating would be in addition to the water we currently see today. Thus a water volume on a order of magnitude larger then that of all the water on earth now is unaccounted for, and needs to be explained.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

See post 40 ... I can't help it if you don't understand what a tidemark is

Repeating what you think is a valid observation that runs contrary to thousands (tens of thousands) of contrary observations does not make your observation valid. I have already agreed that in certain special and limited circumstances it is possible for pebbles to grow in size. This is not so for the vast majority of circumstances wherein we know that pebbles decrease in size. Your 'theory' has to account for those instances and arm waving is not sufficient.

On top of this you seem to be unaware of how sand forms or how carbonates form. You seem completely unaware of the vast body of literature dealing with these matters. But worse than this you choose to iognore this vast body of literature and research, stick your fingers in your ear and repeat your simplistic mantra of 'pebbles get bigger'. Please stop being so childish and look at the frigging evidence.

As to what a tidemark is: I know what I think a tidemark is. I know what the the scientific community think a tidemark is. If I don't understand what you mean by a tidemark that is down to your failure to explain it clearly and that is down to you, not to me. If you want your idea to be considered seriously then it is your responsibility to explain it with clarity and concision.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

I have no interest in determining the rocks age/record … what I am saying is geology is flawed because pebbles get bigger not smaller, which tells us how the pyramids were built, which tells us … WOW!

first of all, any theory worth its salt needs to explain all of the evidence + be consistent with that evidence
if you claim to have evidence that contradicts radiometric dating then there's an anomaly that needs explaining - you can't just to some hand waving and pretend the contradictory evidence isn't there

secondly, i still haven't seen any clear-cut evidence that pebbles get bigger, just your assertions that it is so
what IS your evidence that pebbles on the beach grow, when i can see that PARTIAL fossils are enclosed in them ? especially since accretion only happens under certain circumstances which don't exist on a pebbly beach

I have extreme difficulty with the words ‘pebbles grow’ grow implies living tissue. It’s more ‘increase in size’ by tidal layering. ‘IF’ (for your sake) pebbles are seen to increase rather than decrease would you agree geology is flawed?
You could go to Amazon/books/reversetheory and read the reviews

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Christopher, do you understand that the volume of water needed to cover the earth as you are indicating would be in addition to the water we currently see today. Thus a water volume on a order of magnitude larger then that of all the water on earth now is unaccounted for, and needs to be explained.

I didn’t say the planet was covered with water’ I said water has flowed across the planet, I do believe, and have mentioned in my book that an ice age where half the planet was under ice, melted and moved across the globe at great speed

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

See post 40 ... I can't help it if you don't understand what a tidemark is

Repeating what you think is a valid observation that runs contrary to thousands (tens of thousands) of contrary observations does not make your observation valid. I have already agreed that in certain special and limited circumstances it is possible for pebbles to grow in size. This is not so for the vast majority of circumstances wherein we know that pebbles decrease in size. Your 'theory' has to account for those instances and arm waving is not sufficient.

On top of this you seem to be unaware of how sand forms or how carbonates form. You seem completely unaware of the vast body of literature dealing with these matters. But worse than this you choose to iognore this vast body of literature and research, stick your fingers in your ear and repeat your simplistic mantra of 'pebbles get bigger'. Please stop being so childish and look at the frigging evidence.

As to what a tidemark is: I know what I think a tidemark is. I know what the the scientific community think a tidemark is. If I don't understand what you mean by a tidemark that is down to your failure to explain it clearly and that is down to you, not to me. If you want your idea to be considered seriously then it is your responsibility to explain it with clarity and concision.

You don’t KNOW pebbles decrease in size because they don’t. It would also seem you’ve done too much reading and not enough thinking. Think’ dirty wash basin, dirty tea cup, how oysters are formed, lime filled kettle, water-stain, all the atmospheric crap pulled down by the rains that get emptied into the seas, nature building its own sea defences, I call the pebbled shoreline ‘natures toilet’ anyway, you have never thought something rubbing and grinding together could actually get bigger, its early days for you but you will get there … hopefully!

We find pebbles of biotite schist and of garnet gneiss, for example. We can see rocks of the same chemical and mineralogical composition forming bedrock in various parts of the world. We can see a trail of material from these outcrops., which incidentally decrease in average size the further they are form the source. We know from meticulous laboratory experiments the conditions of temperature and pressure under which these minerals can form. How do you explain pebbles of this type increasing in size when the conditions encountered near surface and at the ocean's edge do not and cannot permit formation of thse minerals? If you cannot explain this then on this point alone your 'theory' is falsified.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

We find pebbles of biotite schist and of garnet gneiss, for example. We can see rocks of the same chemical and mineralogical composition forming bedrock in various parts of the world. We can see a trail of material from these outcrops., which incidentally decrease in average size the further they are form the source. We know from meticulous laboratory experiments the conditions of temperature and pressure under which these minerals can form. How do you explain pebbles of this type increasing in size when the conditions encountered near surface and at the ocean's edge do not and cannot permit formation of thse minerals? If you cannot explain this then on this point alone your 'theory' is falsified.

Knowing the chemical makeup of ‘Beach’ pebbles is possibly more your department all I know is that I have considered all the facts about how pebbles getting bigger and I have considered all the changing facts relating to them getting bigger, and they don’t get smaller. The input is greater than the output, more so in the summer. Geology is flawed from the very first page, hard to comprehend but true

Clearly Christopher you do not know all the facts. I have just presented you with some that your 'theory' is unable to account for. I insist that you give a proper answer rather than just more arm waving and declarations that you are right. If you are unclear about what I have asked Iwill happily take the time to explain it to you, but a proper answer from you is essential.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Clearly Christopher you do not know all the facts. I have just presented you with some that your 'theory' is unable to account for. I insist that you give a proper answer rather than just more arm waving and declarations that you are right. If you are unclear about what I have asked Iwill happily take the time to explain it to you, but a proper answer from you is essential.

The problem is that you are talking about rocks from strange places around the world, and biotite, from the mineral and mica group, be it metamorphic, igneous or sedimentary that erode. And I’m talking about plain old fashion beach pebbles that are covered at least twice a day from dirty filthy polluted incoming tides. Tides that have the power to leave wet and heavy pebbles at the top of the beach to dry, try and use some commonsense rather than text book errors … sorry if that sounds rude, it not meant too xx

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

The problem is that you are talking about rocks from strange places around the world,

I am sorry you consider Scotland a strange place. Or Norway. Or Canada. Or Finland. Or parts of China. Or dozens of other locations. I could have cited other pebble compositions - all equally commonplace, yet apparently strange, or unknown to you. You do not know what - on a global basis - beach pebbles are formed from. Worse than that, you refuse to be educated in the matter. That is either gross arrogance or rampanrt stupidity.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

And I’m talking about plain old fashion beach pebbles

And what do you think beach pebbles are made of? Do you think they are all composed of the same materials you might see along the beach at Brighton? Do you have any notion of the concept of provenance? Seriously, your ignorance is astounding. (And if that does sound rude, tough. If you maintain such a close minded, ignorant, delusional, stance you do not deserve courtesy.) If you wish to be taken seriously you need to investigate these things properly, not a like a four year old child.

So, I still require that you provide an explanation as to how a complex mineralogy can develop on a 'growing' pebble under conditions that are far outside the stability field of the constituent minerals. If you cannot even attempt to do this then your entire thesis is utterly discredited.

This thread is clearly pseudoscience. Moved.

Time to move this crapfest to Pseudoscience, IMHO.

LOL, beat me by one minute Thanx Harold!

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

... I have considered all the facts about how pebbles getting bigger and I have considered all the changing facts relating to them getting bigger, and they don’t get smaller

ok, the 1 million dollar question : HOW have you established that pebbles get bigger ? what is your methodology ?
and don't come with smart alec remarks like "i used my eyes", i want the exact measurements you've taken to ascertain that a pebble gets larger over time

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

The problem is that you are talking about rocks from strange places around the world,

I am sorry you consider Scotland a strange place. Or Norway. Or Canada. Or Finland. Or parts of China. Or dozens of other locations. I could have cited other pebble compositions - all equally commonplace, yet apparently strange, or unknown to you. You do not know what - on a global basis - beach pebbles are formed from. Worse than that, you refuse to be educated in the matter. That is either gross arrogance or rampanrt stupidity.

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

And I’m talking about plain old fashion beach pebbles

And what do you think beach pebbles are made of? Do you think they are all composed of the same materials you might see along the beach at Brighton? Do you have any notion of the concept of provenance? Seriously, your ignorance is astounding. (And if that does sound rude, tough. If you maintain such a close minded, ignorant, delusional, stance you do not deserve courtesy.) If you wish to be taken seriously you need to investigate these things properly, not a like a four year old child.

So, I still require that you provide an explanation as to how a complex mineralogy can develop on a 'growing' pebble under conditions that are far outside the stability field of the constituent minerals. If you cannot even attempt to do this then your entire thesis is utterly discredited.

You can require and demand as much as you like’ throwing your toys out the pram will not change the fact that your science is flawed ... A real scientists would relish the challenge of a new adventure.

Salt polluted seawater has salt and pollution within, yes or no?
Every layer that dries on the shore dries on the shore, yes or no?
Could another layer come along and sticks to the previous layer. Yes or no?

Every outgoing tide leaves behind a sheet of oily substances, what other pollutants within, I can only guess, but each layer is as thin as a fingerprint. All I know’ it is there, and I can see it.

Ok a lot of rubbing and grinding is taking place but if you care to look you can easily see each exposed coloured layer. You will only see them if you have an open mind, other than that You will continue your life with a closed mind … the choice is yours. And once you understand the mechanics behind the process, it becomes a ‘No Brainer’

Don’t be frightened, there is a lot of work to be done and with your help we should be fine. I think your problem is you are frightened that everything you know about geology is now out of date. Please let me assure you that that is not the case, everything you know about geology is now of the utmost importance. Shrink ‘deep-time’ back to a matter of a few years and the mathematics’ become … Wonderful

The mathematician John Playfair, one of James Hutton’s colleagues in the Scottish enlightenment later remarked upon seeing the strata of the angular unconformity at Siccar Point with Hutton and James Hall in June 1788 ‘the mind seems to grow giddy by looking into the abyss of time’ Hutton’s words ‘we find no vestige of a beginning and no prospect of an end’ … Wrong!

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

... I have considered all the facts about how pebbles getting bigger and I have considered all the changing facts relating to them getting bigger, and they don’t get smaller

ok, the 1 million dollar question : HOW have you established that pebbles get bigger ? what is your methodology ?

commonsense

Originally Posted by Christopher Ball

You can require and demand as much as you like’

That is the first time you have been 100% correct. I can demand and require, because you have chosen to make a claim that you say is scientific and you have made it on a science forum. In so doing, in choosing to be a part of the scientific process, you are required to repsond to the criticism of your 'theory'. It is not acceptable to simply keep stating that you are right and science is flawed. You are required to explain your methodology, with more than a trite, one word answer. You are required to address points that seemingly falsify your 'theory'. You are required to do all these things. And I am fully entitled to demand that you do so.

Your description of the growth of pebbles contains within it the falsification of your 'theory'. The accreted material you speak of is totally different in composition from the original pebble. Yet, other than this thin veneer, we do not see pebbles that contain a small pebble at the core and layers of this accreted material around it. If your 'theory' were correct that is exactly what we would see. Please explain why we do not routinely see such pebbles on beaches, or river beds, in deserts, or submarine canyons, or in ancient conglomerates, or breccias. Once again, if you cannot explain that, then your 'theory' is wholly falsified.

Your examination of pebbles seems to have been limited to Brighton Beach. I, on the other hand, have looked at pebbles on beaches, in rivers beds, on hillsides, in screes, on deltas; I have looked at pebbles on five continents, spanning a time frame from the Archean to the present and from unconsolidated to metamorphosed. Therefore, do not have the temerity to suggest that I should actually look at pebbles. I've certainly seen more pebbles in my life than you have functioning neurons.

You suggest that I am frightened that everything I know about geology is out of date. On the contrary. I am delighted that much of what I currently know about geology will prove to be incomplete, or improperly understood. I relish that opportunity for us to deepen and extend and improve our understanding. Unfortunately your infantile nonsense, now rightly consigned to pseudoscience, will not be a part of those new revelations.

It seems to me that You are holding up science because you have no ears

Copernicus, Galileo, Columbus, Darwin, and many many others were publicly derided, jeered and laughed at. From many official quarters like Oxford and Cambridge and the complete science world, even the biblical world laughed when they first suggested an alternative view of the world but now it is deemed by the scientific majority to be accurate
Pseudoscience Indeed