Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


nonaffiated last won the day on June 27 2014

nonaffiated had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About nonaffiated

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
  1. nonaffiated

    Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To

    So they will be taking gov't money. They can spin it as they like. I'm not saying that's any different then any other entity taking advantage of such resources, just commenting on the fact.
  2. nonaffiated

    Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To

    Good discussion, not quite sure where I stand here. Think I have to lean more to the side of this being discrimination. I can certainly see a tour guide being required to have a good working knowledge of the Bible for example, but to be able to fire or hire someone exclusively on the basis of thier religious belief seems to go against the discrimination laws we have here in the U.S. As far as my personal beliefs go, I am utterly appauled at the thought of making someone sign a "statement of faith" prior to being hired or to be associated with. I couldn't imagine requiring such a thing.
  3. nonaffiated

    Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To

    I'm not quite understanding the public funding aspect of this, can someone please help with this? Is Ham fully funding the construction, and then will subsequently recieve tax breaks after it is built?
  4. nonaffiated

    Coral Atolls, Archipelago Etc...

    No worries Brad, we've all been there.
  5. nonaffiated

    Coral Atolls, Archipelago Etc...

    Perhaps Roth was aware of the core samples that were taken from from which a pretty good record of events can be gleaned. Perhaps he was aware that data suggesting a growth rate of 414mm a year was actually done in the early 30's and that since that time, actual core samples had been taken which gave a more direct method of examining the substrate. The samples that indicate that the growth of the coral reef on the atoll was anything but constant due to the areas in the layers where pollen from trees is abundant, indicating a very low water level and therefore very little growth at that time. Corals can only live at a certain depth in the water, not too shallow, not too deep, so if the ocean level was rapidly rising, then the corals could grow faster, assuming there is enough calcium carbonate available to take in to use as the actual building material of the reef. (And the reason why the Great Barrier isn't bigger then it already is to answer Dr. H*vind's question.) But there is a limit to how fast these can grow in a rising ocean because there are examples of "drowned" reefs, where the growth rate could not keep up with the rising oceans and subsequently could not stay in that "happy coral zone" of water deoth required for survival. So if the water level is stable, the reef will not experience much vertical growth as it may find itself growing out of this zone. It was not hard at all to find references to the growth rates of 414mm year claim, since practically all the results that came up on my search were from creationists sites that seem to like to use this as their main source of argument for a young atoll age. I did find though that Roth himself referenced the article as follows: The figures given above contrast sharply with some figures based on actual soundings of reefs. Sewell (1935) reported 280 mm/year in the Andaman Islands in the Bay of Bengal, and Verstelle (1932) reported a maximum rate of growth of 414 mm/year in the Celebes. This latter figure would allow for the development of the 1405 m of the Enewetak reef in less than 3400 years. So in other words, even though the article was written in 1979, it was based on findings from the 30's before the actual core samples were taken in preparation for the nuclear testing done in the 50's. No doubt Roth was well aware of the actual core samples taken from the atoll, so it is no wonder that he was unable to claim evidence of reef formation in recent times. Providing that is actual court records of course, my apologies for not being able to source actual transcripts. I don't really need to go into erosion rates or the rates of deposition of basalt from volcanoes to demonstrate a rather large time scale here. Besides, natural forces are always disrupting any long term rates and we can observe this. But back to the point... The Hawaiian Archipelago is a classic example. Do you see the atolls and guyotes at the left of the image? Those are the places where the basalt foundations are covered with coral reefs at great depths much like Eniwetok. Is there any question that these were once volcanically formed islands that have since eroded down to nothing? Now notice as we look further to the right, and we see what appears to be a progression of more recently formed islands displaying subsequent states of erosion until we get to the big island of Hawaii which is still actively forming. Note that this is the only place we see volcanic activity EXCEPT for the tiny underwater seamount called Loihi which is slowly growing by volcanic activity. This appears to indicate that these formations were formed as the plates were moved over a volcanic hot spot which is still to this day creating this formation. Lets consider the amount of basalt that has been produced and subsequently eroded. Consider that size of the big island and how long that took to form. Please explain this formation with the Biblical flood scenario.
  6. It's quite simple to start a new topic, I'll go ahead and do just that. http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=6137 Since no one seems to care to address the claim of misrepresentation of secular scientists here, and we are now free to discuss the topic of atolls on another thread, perhaps now we can discuss the Genuineness of Dr. H*vind's claims on the next topic of his video, the Niagra Falls.
  7. Thanks for your comment as well, I don't have much time, but perhaps this can get this topic started... The afore mentioned Roth used was called to testify at the 1981 trial of Arkansas Act 590, the "Balanced Treatment Act," Roth, not a member of CRS, was presented as an expert on coral reefs whose thesis is that corals grow very rapidly and do not need millions of years to form massive reefs. He testified for 70 minutes, but the cross-examination was brief. Q: "What is the last sentence of your article on the growth of coral reefs?" A: "...this does not establish rapid growth of coral development." Q: "Is there any evidence that coral reefs were created in recent times?" A: "No." Q: "No further questions."...from "Science, Religion, Politics, Law, and Education" by Tim Berra From Roth's article (last lines): "Nevertheless a number of facts indicate that coral reef growth rates may be much faster than some of the slower estimates reported in the literature. Our present knowledge does not preclude rapid rates of development; some factors definitely facilitate it." The dating of such atolls is not conducted by trying to figure out the fastest possible rate of growth of corals and then dividing it by the depth of its structure. And this is exactly what he is saying at the end of his his article. We can discuss further here the various methods used to date the age of such atolls. I would love to discuss not only the coral depth here, but also the formations of archipelagos, which seem to indicate not only long periods of time for their formation, but also their errosion and submersion which would have been required before such massive colonies could even form.
  8. Also, if he was a high school science teacher, he would probably know exactly why there aren't bigger reefs in the ocean today. (see his very next point in the video) So again I must ask, Does he actually not know that coral reefs can only grow in very warm water conditions at a very specific ocean depth, (they can't grow in the deep ocean waters that make up the vast majority of the worlds oceans) or is he being dishonest by asking this question when one would think that a science teacher would already know this information? We can go on with other examples of what I would consider questionable presentations of facts on this video which was the original intent of this thread.
  9. Point taken, there is no way to absolutely no for sure whether he was lying, or whether he was incompetent in gathering information for his presentations.
  10. Sorry, but this is the 1st image that popped into my mind when I read this. Look, if this is exactly how this all happened, the heck ya, he should win his law suit. To fire someone solely for the reason of religious beliefs. Forgive me if I feel that his account of the events sounds a bit exaggerated. But I can also see the problem for a university trying to attract students to a science program that has a prof teaching something that has fallen out of favor with the consensus of science hundreds of years ago. Its an interesting topic and I will look forward to see how it plays out. I still have to look into this further before I can gain an opinion. But it does appear that he published a legit paper on his findings.
  11. nonaffiated

    Questions For Any Creationist/young Earther.

    Will be busy all week, but ya, thanks for keeping it lively but civil! Something to leave you with... Ben Franklin did not discover electricity, it was already known, He demonstrated that lightning and electricity are one in the same. The ramifications of this was that God's disapproval of a church could no longer be invoked as the cause of lightening strikes. Well, I guess it still could, but Franklin showed how God's wrath could be tamed with a lightening rod.
  12. nonaffiated

    Questions For Any Creationist/young Earther.

    They know, and can demonstrate, with repeatable reliability where the electrical impulses are generated in the human brain, in relation to the thoughts and emotions of the subject. They can demonstrate physical and chemical imbalances which can be predictably alleviated with medicine, and or proceedures. And yes, many aspects of human behavior are predictable with a great deal of certainty. AND, this predictability can be tested, and demonstrated. That's fine, no worries, but then you must understand that makes any other non demonstrable explanation equally valid.
  13. nonaffiated

    Supernatural/paranormal Evidence

    I was reffering more to the TV show producers. They tend to re-enact scenes that don't always jive with what the actual people are saying in the interests of ratings. Remeber, just like the illusionists, their goal is to make you think that there are unexplainable things on their show, not saying that that isn't necessarily the case, but that is thier prime motive.
  14. nonaffiated

    Questions For Any Creationist/young Earther.

    Sorry that I don't have time to join this, time constraints prevent me from keeping up with threads when they get involved. It's just that this one got to me. You can say this, but if you have witnessed some sort of unexplainable event, and perhaps even document it to show that it really happened, that's one thing. You may even be able to repeat the phenomena. (Yes, like dropping a pen which I can demonstrate a force because I can do it repeatedly, predict that it will fall at the exact same speed, and explain to you how you can do the exact same demonstration with the exact same results).....can you demonstrate your demon powers like this? If not then this is an extremely poor comparison. But if you claim that the cause is beyond our laws of physics and therefore no way to make experiments with, Then you have no justification to claim with any certainty that you know what the cause was. How can you assert with any certainty that you know the cause when I could assert a completely different cause, since I can't demonstrate it with experimentation either. Yes, it's real easy to explain something when your explanation is a supernatural being, with infinite powers and cannot be demonstrated with experimentation because its beyond our ability to do so.
  15. nonaffiated

    Supernatural/paranormal Evidence

    I understand that you weren't necessarily directing that towards me, but I just want to clarify that I do not reject everything in the Bible wholecloth, but rather look at each element by the same scrutiny as with any claim. (like what we discussed in the previous post.)

Important Information

Our Terms