Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

Justatruthseeker · Apr 13, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Was it? Why would you expect basalt? Wasn't this land based? Land based crust tends to have a granitic base, not a basaltic one. You need to support this claim with a valid link.

I'm not the one that expected basalt..... they did based upon their interpretations of the seismic data. You haven't been paying attention....

Kola Superdeep Borehole

"One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys."

Any more misunderstanding for not paying attention we need to get out of the way?

Yes, because we can directly observe the velocity of waves traveling through the Earth. I think we are not only following you, we have left you behind.

Said interpretation of that data already shown to be wrong.....

But you have not supported your first claim at all. What makes you think that they had seismic data that they based their conclusions on? Like I said, we have left you behind.

I supported it long ago in my first post on this subject. You just didn't pay attention then. Cognitive dissonance blinded you to anything you didn't want to see....

""One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.""

Nope, that is no logic. That is creationist all or nothing thinking. It almost always leads to errors.

No, what leads to errors is believing the seismic data pointed to a denser basalt rock, finding out you were wrong, then thinking the same interpretation means denser material deeper.....

But once again, they were not shown to be wrong yet. This appears to be your misinterpretation of an article only.

Once again they were shown to be wrong.

""One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.""

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability"

As I said, will continue to ignore the experimental data to hang on to falsified theory....

No, the increased density of the core is based upon more than just that. Of course the seismic data strongly supports the concept. So does basic physics. Items under greater pressure will tend to be denser. Even 'incompressible objects' tend to get denser under pressure. Water for example is about 5% denser at the bottom of the Marianas trench than at the top:

Mariana Trench - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should start by supporting your claim with the claim of basaltic material.

It's based on exactly the seismic data.... and nothing else.... Try learning the basic before arguing a subject you don't understand....

Earth’s Interior | Earth Science

"To learn about Earth’s interior, scientists use energy, recorded by seismographs, to “see” the different layers of the Earth, just like doctors can use an MRI, CT scan, or x-ray to see inside our bodies."

I’m just glad doctors don’t misinterpret MRI, CT scans, or x-rays so miserably wrong.....

Seismographs who's interpretation has already been shown to be wrong by direct experimental data.

If all you are going to do is keep ignoring the empirical data and making false claims then our discussion is at an end....

Subduction Zone · Apr 13, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
I'm not the one that expected basalt..... they did based upon their interpretations of the seismic data. You haven't been paying attention....

Kola Superdeep Borehole

"One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys."

Any more misunderstanding for not paying attention we need to get out of the way?

Always check the claims of your sources. That explanation of the Conrad discontinuity has not been well accepted since the 1960's. All that this hole did was to show that at this locale that there was no basaltic crust:

Conrad discontinuity - Wikipedia

When using a source that is not peer reviewed you need to do a little more homework. So you still screwed up.

Said interpretation of that data already shown to be wrong.....

At this one locale only and it was already a concept that was not well accepted. You are now swinging at nothing.

I supported it long ago in my first post on this subject. You just didn't pay attention then. Cognitive dissonance blinded you to anything you didn't want to see....

""One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.""

Or I simple ignored it due to your history of using poor sources.

No, what leads to errors is believing the seismic data pointed to a denser basalt rock, finding out you were wrong, then thinking the same interpretation means denser material deeper.....

But it didn't. Once again that was no longer a well accepted explanation. All that did was to show that those that did not accept that explanation, which was already in doubt, were likely correct.

Once again they were shown to be wrong.

Those particular scientists that were trying to prove the Conrad discontinuity. You are too quick to jump to unsupported conclusions.

""One of the most surprising findings was the absence of the transition from granite to basalt, which scientists had long expected to exist between three and six kilometers below the surface. Known to geologists as the “Conrad discontinuity,” this transition in rock type was reasoned to exist due to the results of seismic-reflection surveys.""

"Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability"

As I said, will continue to ignore the experimental data to hang on to falsified theory....

It's based on exactly the seismic data.... and nothing else.... Try learning the basic before arguing a subject you don't understand....

Earth’s Interior | Earth Science

"To learn about Earth’s interior, scientists use energy, recorded by seismographs, to “see” the different layers of the Earth, just like doctors can use an MRI, CT scan, or x-ray to see inside our bodies."

I’m just glad doctors don’t misinterpret MRI, CT scans, or x-rays so miserably wrong.....

Seismographs who's interpretation has already been shown to be wrong by direct experimental data.

If all you are going to do is keep ignoring the empirical data and making false claims then our discussion is at an end....

More all or nothing thinking. No, I already explained this error of yours. Ever increasing pressure alone would cause density to increase all by itself. The seismic signature of the various boundaries that are well accepted is very clear. Especially at the mantle outer core boundary. That is where it is obvious that there is a phase change by the waves that get through and those that do not. P waves can pass through a liquid or a solid. S waves can only be transmitted through a solid. You are the one that ignores empirical evidence. The Conrad discontinuity was not well defined by seismic evidence. That is why it was never fully accepted and as other explanations came along it came into serious doubt. All this did was to refute the not well supported Conrad discontinuity at best.

Subduction Zone · Apr 13, 2019

By the way if you read that Wiki article that I linked you will see why it was doubted before these holes were drilled. Rarely deep continental crust is uplifted. Metamorphic rocks can be fascinating since they can be literally phase diagram maps of the depths. When metamorphosisation occurs different minerals form at different pressures. If the rock is cooled before being uplift those changes can be locked in and we can tell by the mineral assemblages how deeply buried the rock was. If rotated with uplift the north part of an outcrop may represent a deeper depth of formation than the southern part of the same formation.

Justatruthseeker · Apr 14, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
By the way if you read that Wiki article that I linked you will see why it was doubted before these holes were drilled. Rarely deep continental crust is uplifted. Metamorphic rocks can be fascinating since they can be literally phase diagram maps of the depths. When metamorphosisation occurs different minerals form at different pressures. If the rock is cooled before being uplift those changes can be locked in and we can tell by the mineral assemblages how deeply buried the rock was. If rotated with uplift the north part of an outcrop may represent a deeper depth of formation than the southern part of the same formation.

Or, as the rock is uplifted into the higher pressure, it undergoes metamorphic change and locks those characteristics in just beneath the surface. Untill then being more porus and less dense.....

Kola Superdeep Borehole

"This led to scientists’ realization that the seismic-reflection results were due to a metamorphic change in the rock (i.e. from intense heat and pressure), and not a change in rock type as they had previously anticipated."

So this metamorphism actually occurs just beneath the surface......

Justatruthseeker · Apr 14, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Always check the claims of your sources. That explanation of the Conrad discontinuity has not been well accepted since the 1960's. All that this hole did was to show that at this locale that there was no basaltic crust:

That's all they all show, and they all show the same thing.... and in each and every case the researches expected to find basalt because of seismic profiles....

German Continental Deep Drilling Programme - Wikipedia

"The experiments at the KTB produced interesting results. The initial seismic tests showed very different recordings compared to those near the surface so that the theories on the source of seismic reflections needed to change. Using the data, the reflections from depth could be interpreted better even when initiated from the surface."

Yet they continue on with the same falsified interpretations anyways..... Because as we all know, theory is more important than data.... which you all keep confirming in every post.....

And what was found?

"This caused discussion and a reformulation of theories about the temperature gradient of very deep drill holes. Other theory changes were also required – it had been expected that the large tectonic pressures and high temperatures would create metamorphic rock. Unexpectedly the rock layers were not solid at the depths reached. Instead large amounts of fluid and gas poured into the drill hole. Due to the heat and fluids, the rock was of a dynamic nature which changed how the next super-deep drilling needed to be planned."

Of course they were not solid, they were in the transitional stage to be metamorphic rocks as they came closer to the surface.... where the density as they slowly cooled would increase over time from being in the highest gravity.....

Instead they also found less dense and more porous rock.

"The third experiment, the "Fluid/Hydraulik-Test," pumped large amounts of fluid into the rock which proved it to be generally porous."

EVERY SINGLE hole drilled shows the exact opposite of predictions. They show decreasing density and increasing porosity below the maximum gravitational field at the surface.... But geologists cant understand why their seismic interpretations are wrong...... because waves do not travel the same in materials in less gravity as they do at the surface in higher gravity. Hence the fact "The initial seismic tests showed very different recordings compared to those near the surface so that the theories on the source of seismic reflections needed to change."

And no, it isn't the source that needs to change, but their entire interpretation of the data due to their flawed belief. A belief evident as they continually blame increasing pressure for the reason they were wrong, when the rock continues to become more porous. Rock does not become more porous under increasing pressure, but more dense. Rock become more porous under decreasing pressure.....

But it seems as if none of you actually understand science and think increasing pressure leads to increasing porosity...... that or you just never paid attention to their poor excuse as to why they were wrong and just accepted their answer at face value..... without applying any logic....

I'm going with a bit of both for the reason you never noticed the contradiction in their excuses.....

Subduction Zone · Apr 14, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Or, as the rock is uplifted into the higher pressure, it undergoes metamorphic change and locks those characteristics in just beneath the surface. Untill then being more porus and less dense.....

Kola Superdeep Borehole

"This led to scientists’ realization that the seismic-reflection results were due to a metamorphic change in the rock (i.e. from intense heat and pressure), and not a change in rock type as they had previously anticipated."

So this metamorphism actually occurs just beneath the surface......

No, the heat and temperatures needed can be measured in the lab. You did not pay attention to the post. There are minerals that cannot form near the surface.

Subduction Zone · Apr 14, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
That's all they all show, and they all show the same thing.... and in each and every case the researches expected to find basalt because of seismic profiles....

German Continental Deep Drilling Programme - Wikipedia

"The experiments at the KTB produced interesting results. The initial seismic tests showed very different recordings compared to those near the surface so that the theories on the source of seismic reflections needed to change. Using the data, the reflections from depth could be interpreted better even when initiated from the surface."

Yet they continue on with the same falsified interpretations anyways..... Because as we all know, theory is more important than data.... which you all keep confirming in every post.....

And what was found?

"This caused discussion and a reformulation of theories about the temperature gradient of very deep drill holes. Other theory changes were also required – it had been expected that the large tectonic pressures and high temperatures would create metamorphic rock. Unexpectedly the rock layers were not solid at the depths reached. Instead large amounts of fluid and gas poured into the drill hole. Due to the heat and fluids, the rock was of a dynamic nature which changed how the next super-deep drilling needed to be planned."

Of course they were not solid, they were in the transitional stage to be metamorphic rocks as they came closer to the surface.... where the density as they slowly cooled would increase over time from being in the highest gravity.....

Instead they also found less dense and more porous rock.

"The third experiment, the "Fluid/Hydraulik-Test," pumped large amounts of fluid into the rock which proved it to be generally porous."

EVERY SINGLE hole drilled shows the exact opposite of predictions. They show decreasing density and increasing porosity below the maximum gravitational field at the surface.... But geologists cant understand why their seismic interpretations are wrong...... because waves do not travel the same in materials in less gravity as they do at the surface in higher gravity. Hence the fact "The initial seismic tests showed very different recordings compared to those near the surface so that the theories on the source of seismic reflections needed to change."

And no, it isn't the source that needs to change, but their entire interpretation of the data due to their flawed belief. A belief evident as they continually blame increasing pressure for the reason they were wrong, when the rock continues to become more porous. Rock does not become more porous under increasing pressure, but more dense. Rock become more porous under decreasing pressure.....

But it seems as if none of you actually understand science and think increasing pressure leads to increasing porosity...... that or you just never paid attention to their poor excuse as to why they were wrong and just accepted their answer at face value..... without applying any logic....

I'm going with a bit of both for the reason you never noticed the contradiction in their excuses.....

What do you think that article tells you? There is nothing there about basaltic rock, which was your claim in the other article that you needed to check a bit deeper. I need to know what you are trying to claim before I point out clear errors again.

Justatruthseeker · Apr 14, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
No, the heat and temperatures needed can be measured in the lab. You did not pay attention to the post. There are minerals that cannot form near the surface.

That’s what you keep saying and yet Ringwoodite said to only form at depth under extreme pressures is so porous more than 80% of it is composed of water molecules. And has been found in chondrite metorites.....

Chondrite - Wikipedia

“Chondrites are stony (non-metallic) meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body.”

So we have the same rock forming in meteorites that never underwent intense pressure or heating.....

Now it certainly isn’t the Ringwoodite that doesn’t know how to form, it is simply man’s flawed belief in how it forms..... man’s flawed belief that the earth is denser towards the core.

I asked you all if you believe gravity has anything to do with electromagnetism or electric charge?

We can easily walk through the steps and show why their entire belief system is incorrect based upon theory that doesn’t apply....

But here you are. Going to ignore rocks found in meteorites that formed under no pressure or heat, that is claimed to require great heat and pressure in the earth.

Or did those rocks form long ago before the earth coalesced into its present size and were then just below what was then the surface. That you now mistake as having formed after the earth reached its present size.....

You all act like the earth formed instantly from dust sticking together....

It formed the same way on earth as it did in meteorites, when they were young and just beginning to coalesce..... you then mistake rocks in the low gravity conditions of the interior as being dense because as they rise towards the surface they enter progressively more gravitational influence and heat and undergo metamorphic change.... and then once on the surface under the full force of gravity it is at its densest state after it cooled. And then you come along and say why look, a dense metamorphic rock. It must have sunk from the surface towards the interior where it underwent metamorphosis then been transported to the surface...

So you have less dense rock sinking, and more dense rock rising. Or did less dense rock rise because the earths gravity is stronger just beneath the surface, undergo metamorphic change, then be ejected by lava flow onto the surface....

Rock that they claim requires intense pressure and heat formed in meteorites that underwent no intense pressure and no heat... so we have two choices. Dismiss the evidence of Ringwoodite found in chondrite meteorites, or dismiss man’s theory of how it is actually formed. Sorry, evidence wins every single time.....

Justatruthseeker · Apr 14, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
What do you think that article tells you? There is nothing there about basaltic rock, which was your claim in the other article that you needed to check a bit deeper. I need to know what you are trying to claim before I point out clear errors again.

Sigh, your cognitive dissonance is strong....

I think the article tells me the earth becomes less dense and more porous with depth....

Keep ignoring the less dense more porous material found....

Keep ignoring their seismic results were shown to be wrong....

We are discussing your false beliefs of increasing density and correct seismic readings. Of which every deep drilling operation has falsified....

You weren’t happy with one, so I gave you two now which reported the same results, and still you ignore.....

They also expected hard rock and instead found less dense porous rock in a state of plasticity. Exactly the opposite of what they expected to find because they like you ignored the Russian findings and should have known better.....

Subduction Zone · Apr 14, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
That’s what you keep saying and yet Ringwoodite said to only form at depth under extreme pressures is so porous more than 80% of it is composed of water molecules. And has been found in chondrite metorites.....

Chondrite - Wikipedia

“Chondrites are stony (non-metallic) meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body.”

So we have the same rock forming in meteorites that never underwent intense pressure or heating.....

Now it certainly isn’t the Ringwoodite that doesn’t know how to form, it is simply man’s flawed belief in how it forms..... man’s flawed belief that the earth is denser towards the core.

I asked you all if you believe gravity has anything to do with electromagnetism or electric charge?

We can easily walk through the steps and show why their entire belief system is incorrect based upon theory that doesn’t apply....

But here you are. Going to ignore rocks found in meteorites that formed under no pressure or heat, that is claimed to require great heat and pressure in the earth.

Or did those rocks form long ago before the earth coalesced into its present size and were then just below what was then the surface. That you now mistake as having formed after the earth reached its present size.....

You all act like the earth formed instantly from dust sticking together....

It formed the same way on earth as it did in meteorites, when they were young and just beginning to coalesce..... you then mistake rocks in the low gravity conditions of the interior as being dense because as they rise towards the surface they enter progressively more gravitational influence and heat and undergo metamorphic change.... and then once on the surface under the full force of gravity it is at its densest state after it cooled. And then you come along and say why look, a dense metamorphic rock. It must have sunk from the surface towards the interior where it underwent metamorphosis then been transported to the surface...

So you have less dense rock sinking, and more dense rock rising. Or did less dense rock rise because the earths gravity is stronger just beneath the surface, undergo metamorphic change, then be ejected by lava flow onto the surface....

Rock that they claim requires intense pressure and heat formed in meteorites that underwent no intense pressure and no heat... so we have two choices. Dismiss the evidence of Ringwoodite found in chondrite meteorites, or dismiss man’s theory of how it is actually formed. Sorry, evidence wins every single time.....

Wrong. It does not say that. Where do you get these conclusions from? Don't assume because your knowledge is terribly flawed that that of scientists is.

Your article does not support you at all and I am at a loss in why you think that it does.

Justatruthseeker · Apr 14, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong. It does not say that. Where do you get these conclusions from? Don't assume because your knowledge is terribly flawed that that of scientists is.

Your article does not support you at all and I am at a loss in why you think that it does.

Why do you always argue what you clearly do not understand?

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia

“Ringwoodite is a high-pressure phase of Mg2SiO4formed at high temperatures and pressures of the Earth's mantle between 525 and 660 km (326 and 410 mi) depth.”

Yet is found in chondrite meteorites that have never seen pressure or high temperatures....

It’s because you are so confused..... It takes man using high pressure and heat to form things in an experimentally observable time frame that nature took millions of years under lower temperatures and pressures to form. You then incorrectly assume nature did it the same way, despite it being found in meteorites that never underwent high pressure or temperatures.

SZ, our conversation is at an end since you are clearly unwilling to learn actual science and do nothing but make absurd claims while ignoring the actual data written in black and white right in front of your nose.

You are so lost in your fantasies you are beyond hope....

They tell you the density decreases, you argue they didn’t say that. They tell you the porosity increased, you argue they didn’t say that. They tell you the seismic data was incorrectly interpreted at the surface, you argue they didn’t say that....

Regardless that it’s right there in black and white.

You can’t be helped as long as you continue to ignore reality and hide in your fantasies..... have a wonderful life in wonderland.....

Subduction Zone · Apr 14, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Sigh, your cognitive dissonance is strong....

I think the article tells me the earth becomes less dense and more porous with depth....

Keep ignoring the less dense more porous material found....

Keep ignoring their seismic results were shown to be wrong....

We are discussing your false beliefs of increasing density and correct seismic readings. Of which every deep drilling operation has falsified....

You weren’t happy with one, so I gave you two now which reported the same results, and still you ignore.....

They also expected hard rock and instead found less dense porous rock in a state of plasticity. Exactly the opposite of what they expected to find because they like you ignored the Russian findings and should have known better.....

Oh my, please if anyone has cognitive dissonance it is you. You misunderstood another article. It did not make the claims that you said that it did.

Justatruthseeker said:
That’s what you keep saying and yet Ringwoodite said to only form at depth under extreme pressures is so porous more than 80% of it is composed of water molecules. And has been found in chondrite metorites.....

Chondrite - Wikipedia

“Chondrites are stony (non-metallic) meteorites that have not been modified due to melting or differentiation of the parent body.”

So we have the same rock forming in meteorites that never underwent intense pressure or heating.....

Now it certainly isn’t the Ringwoodite that doesn’t know how to form, it is simply man’s flawed belief in how it forms..... man’s flawed belief that the earth is denser towards the core.

I asked you all if you believe gravity has anything to do with electromagnetism or electric charge?

We can easily walk through the steps and show why their entire belief system is incorrect based upon theory that doesn’t apply....

But here you are. Going to ignore rocks found in meteorites that formed under no pressure or heat, that is claimed to require great heat and pressure in the earth.

Or did those rocks form long ago before the earth coalesced into its present size and were then just below what was then the surface. That you now mistake as having formed after the earth reached its present size.....

You all act like the earth formed instantly from dust sticking together....

It formed the same way on earth as it did in meteorites, when they were young and just beginning to coalesce..... you then mistake rocks in the low gravity conditions of the interior as being dense because as they rise towards the surface they enter progressively more gravitational influence and heat and undergo metamorphic change.... and then once on the surface under the full force of gravity it is at its densest state after it cooled. And then you come along and say why look, a dense metamorphic rock. It must have sunk from the surface towards the interior where it underwent metamorphosis then been transported to the surface...

So you have less dense rock sinking, and more dense rock rising. Or did less dense rock rise because the earths gravity is stronger just beneath the surface, undergo metamorphic change, then be ejected by lava flow onto the surface....

Rock that they claim requires intense pressure and heat formed in meteorites that underwent no intense pressure and no heat... so we have two choices. Dismiss the evidence of Ringwoodite found in chondrite meteorites, or dismiss man’s theory of how it is actually formed. Sorry, evidence wins every single time.....

There is so much that you got wrong here. First off it does not imply that low density rock sank and high density rock rose. They expected a denser rock than they found that is all. And in cae you forgot the temperature was about 300 C. That is far below the melting point of 600 degrees for rocks like granite:

Melting Points of Rocks and Minerals

So even though the temperature rose faster than expected that would still be a bit too cool for metamorphosis of granite. One needs to get temperatures of 320 C and if you check out your Wiki article the temperatures were from 250 to 300 C.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gneiss

And yes it was "porous". The area has undergone some tectonic activity so the granite they drilled into would likely be fractures. Fractures will cause igneous rocks to be porous too.

Instead of grasping at straws from cherry picked articles why not ask questions?

Subduction Zone · Apr 14, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Why do you always argue what you clearly do not understand?

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia

“Ringwoodite is a high-pressure phase of Mg2SiO4formed at high temperatures and pressures of the Earth's mantle between 525 and 660 km (326 and 410 mi) depth.”

Yet is found in chondrite meteorites that have never seen pressure or high temperatures....

It’s because you are so confused..... It takes man using high pressure and heat to form things in an experimentally observable time frame that nature took millions of years under lower temperatures and pressures to form. You then incorrectly assume nature did it the same way, despite it being found in meteorites that never underwent high pressure or temperatures.

SZ, our conversation is at an end since you are clearly unwilling to learn actual science and do nothing but make absurd claims while ignoring the actual data written in black and white right in front of your nose.

You are so lost in your fantasies you are beyond hope....

They tell you the density decreases, you argue they didn’t say that. They tell you the porosity increased, you argue they didn’t say that. They tell you the seismic data was incorrectly interpreted at the surface, you argue they didn’t say that....

Regardless that it’s right there in black and white.

You can’t be helped as long as you continue to ignore reality and hide in your fantasies..... have a wonderful life in wonderland.....

You have to dig a little deeper than that. Ringwoodite is found in the crystalline structure of shocked meteorites, ones that underwent a collision. Guess what collisions provide? Here is a link to the article that the Wiki article that you posted used for that claim:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ms_in_shocked_meteorites_and_subducting_slabs

Though there was no need to even go to that article itself. If you had read the Wiki article it would have told you how they are found in shocked meteorites. That should have told you enough.

By the way, your first sentence broke every irony meter within a ten block radius.

Astrophile · Apr 15, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Why do you always argue what you clearly do not understand?

Ringwoodite - Wikipedia

“Ringwoodite is a high-pressure phase of Mg2SiO4formed at high temperatures and pressures of the Earth's mantle between 525 and 660 km (326 and 410 mi) depth.”

Yet is found in chondrite meteorites that have never seen pressure or high temperatures....

From Wikipedia: 'In meteorites, ringwoodite occurs in the veinlets of quenched shock-melt cutting the matrix and replacing olivine probably produced by shock metamorphism' (my emphasis). See Ringwoodite - Wikipedia . The article cites M. Chen, A. El Goresy & P. Gillet, 2004, PNAS, 101, 15033-15037 - Ringwoodite lamellae in olivine: Clues to olivine–ringwoodite phase transition mechanisms in shocked meteorites and subducting slabs

In other words, ringwoodite is produced in chondritic meteorites as a result of shock metamorphism due to collisions between asteroids (the parent bodies of the asteroids). This shock metamorphism has been observed in lunar rocks and in the rocks of terrestrial impact structures; it can produce much higher pressures (up to 100 GPa) than the static metamorphism resulting from deep burial and tectonic processes. This explains the apparent anomaly of the existence of a high-pressure mineral occurring in the low-pressure environment of the parent bodies of meteorites.

tas8831 · Apr 16, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
You mean like the origin of Poodles from the same stock of wolves?

Don’t blame me because you can’t understand the original wolf type creatures had all 100 plus dog variations possible within them, but you can’t get but a few from Poodles due to mutations and loss of information......

Here is a link to the gray wolf genome:

Canis lupus (ID 365) - Genome - NCBI

Here is a link to a poodle genome (the picture shows a boxer or something, but the actual genome is a poodle):
Canis lupus familiaris (ID 85) - Genome - NCBI

With your extensive and unimpeachable encyclopedic knowledge of genes and genetics, please show us how the wolf genome possesses the alleles needed for a poodle.

Dan From Smithville · Apr 17, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Agreed, versus the belief that they will change species....

A belief that dog breeding would lead to a change in species is a creationist straw man that has nothing to do with theory or the evidence. Given enough time and selection, however, new species do arise. This has been demonstrated from the evidence that you are in denial of.

Justatruthseeker said:
And if poodle breeders did not attempt to breed true, you would still only end up with Poodles until they mated with another breed.

This is just silly. You have no idea and are just repeating your assertion hoping it will stick to the wall.

Justatruthseeker said:
Just as Asians mated primarily with other Asians (they bred true in your words) and remained Asian. Only when they mate with say an African (which also tended to breed true) is variation in the species produced (Afro-Asian).

What is an Asian? Define it and demonstrate your claim. Where did these 'Asians' come from?

Justatruthseeker said:
The blame is all on you for not understanding that Poodles always remain Poodles unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species. That just the same Asians always remain Asians unless bred with something else in their species, then still remain the same species.

You cannot support an argument so we get the natural creationist tendency toward unwarranted arrogance and back-handed insults.

You made up an example using poodles that you have failed to demonstrate even once that it is supported by any evidence. Poodles are not a species.

All the evidence indicates that novel genetic traits can arise in poodles or any other breed of dog, wolf, sparrow, elephant, tortoise, and even in humans.

Justatruthseeker said:
Granted, I understand you can’t see what mated with what from a pile of bones, so your ignorance can be partially forgiven.

I'll return to this in a moment.

Justatruthseeker said:
But every creature in the fossil record remains the same for its entire span of existence until it goes extinct. They all bred true.... only when they bred with another in their species did variation occur.

No. This is not what is seen in the fossil record. Just because you want to see it, does not mean that it is there.

Justatruthseeker said:
Their were no missing common ancestors because just as from Asian and African to Afri-Asian, there was no evolution and there were no missing common ancestors.

You are free to demonstrate that there is no evolution. That would be a welcome and novel turn for you.

Justatruthseeker said:
You simply mistake new variation appearing suddenly in the fossil record as meaning something evolved. Just as the poodle appeared suddenly in the record but did not evolve at all.

You seem to thrive on paradox. There can be no new variation, but I an others mistake 'new' variation for something else. Which is it dude? Is there no variation or is there variation? You creationists are cute when you look in awe at science and shake your bones and rattles at it.

Justatruthseeker said:
Give it up, you clearly do not understand even the basics of breeding, let alone things you can’t observe in the past with a pile of bones.

Another paradox. You claim that we cannot observe the past, but you just made assertions about things seen in the past. Which is it dude

Justatruthseeker said:
Error upon uncorrected error, incorrect classifications after incorrect classifications is the ToE.....

This is just more of your mantras, bones and rattles. It has nothing to do with anything. It is just you shouting your denial.

Justatruthseeker said:
Yes, I understand you will never consider your beliefs to be wrong. But then every generation thinks they are correct and eventually every generation is shown to be wrong. But you still believe you are right when throughout history popular theory has never been correct.....

This is projection. What do my beliefs have to do with this? We are talking about science, theory, the evidence and what is understood and accepted within that framework. Well, I am. You are talking about your belief and how you cannot bring yourself to recognize the evidence and understand that it supports theory.

Justatruthseeker said:
Your only real claim to fame is connecting different creatures with “missing common ancestors” for every single creature on every single tree for every claimed split.... your biggest claim to fame is your pure imagination......

This is just mindless gobbledy-gook. It has nothing to do with anything. Just you reaching desperately for anything you can use to crank up your denial.

Do you have an argument or are you just going to repeat, angrily, the claims that you just keep repeating?

Dan From Smithville · Apr 17, 2019

tas8831 said:
Here is a link to the gray wolf genome:

Canis lupus (ID 365) - Genome - NCBI

Here is a link to a poodle genome (the picture shows a boxer or something, but the actual genome is a poodle):
Canis lupus familiaris (ID 85) - Genome - NCBI

With your extensive and unimpeachable encyclopedic knowledge of genes and genetics, please show us how the wolf genome possesses the alleles needed for a poodle.

This should be good. I'll get the popcorn.

Subduction Zone · Apr 17, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
This should be good. I'll get the popcorn.

I have not seen him since he misinterpreted the results of bore hole drillings into the Earth's crust. His last gasp attempt was to claim that a mineral that does not form in the crust did not need high pressure since it could be found in meteorites. The problem was that it is only found in shocked meteorites or in other words meteorites that were involved in collisions.

Dan From Smithville · Apr 17, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
I have not seen him since he misinterpreted the results of bore hole drillings into the Earth's crust. His last gasp attempt was to claim that a mineral that does not form in the crust did not need high pressure since it could be found in meteorites. The problem was that it is only found in shocked meteorites or in other words meteorites that were involved in collisions.

He seems to be intelligent, but it is amazing how little he understands of the various fields of science about which he is feigning expertise. I see a lot of commentary from him that screams projection.

I do not know if anyone else has gotten this feeling from his posts, but I get this sense that he is trying to convince himself with his useless contrivances about poodles and geology.

tas8831 · Apr 18, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
I have not seen him since he misinterpreted the results of bore hole drillings into the Earth's crust. His last gasp attempt was to claim that a mineral that does not form in the crust did not need high pressure since it could be found in meteorites. The problem was that it is only found in shocked meteorites or in other words meteorites that were involved in collisions.

Yeah, he does that. Poor guy has convinced himself that anything he believes by virtue of it going against 'mainstream' (i.e., secular) science is true, and that he has an in-depth grasp on all of the science involved.

Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Veteran Member

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Well-Known Member