shardsofnarsil

I have been reading some things about the geological column and fossils and am interested in evolutionists' responses. First, why is the geological column presented in textbooks as an definite thing when it does not appear to actually exist anywhere in the world? That is, except for a claim by one site on the Internet, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ Is this generally accepted to be true information? If so, I do not understand how his various layers have any relation whatsoever to the age of the layers listed in tables. He seems to be saying that each layer is made up of different types of materials. If this is correct, then how do we know how old each layer is unless all the materials are radioactive? I understand that it is said that each layer is not everywhere on earth because it didn't accumulate everywhere all the time, but why, for millions of years, whenever it did accumulate, should it have been one kind of material, and then a completely different type of material be deposited for the next millions of years? But maybe layers aren't identified by composition. Some sites seem to be saying that the different layers are simply labeled stretches of earth based on what fossils we find in the sediment. The pro-evolution sites I have found tend to agree that they date fossils based on the layers in which they are found, but what about fossils found in sedementary layers for which there are no radioactive materials to use dating methods? And does this mean that if there are no fossils found we cannot identify the layer? "If you want to find Pre-Cambrian or Palaeozoic strata you must go to the Grand Canyon. If you want to find Mesozoic you must travel to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, you must then travel to New Mexico..." For the overwhelming majority of the earth, why is the distribution of layers so random and varied? For example, the Grand Canyon is reported to contain layers "one, five, six and seven, with small portions here and there of the fourth system, the Devonian." Why should a given area have deposited hundreds of feet during one time period but nothing during the next? I am also interested fossilization in general, as creationists tend to ascribe it to the flood. The main argument I see is that "Rapid burial and lithification are essential for the formation and preservation of fossils; otherwise, they would decay or be destroyed by scavengers. The fact that large scale fossilization is not occurring anywhere in the world today is a serious problem for uniformitarian geologists." Is this true? Am I to believe that every single one of the billions of fossils we find today were either "covered in sediment" before they had a chance to deacy or "frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment such as at the bottom of a lake" (taken from Wikipedia, for what it's worth)? A hundred billion fossils, for instance, over four billion years should require an average of 25 fossils a year, right? Whether or not the actual number found (plus all we haven't found) is a hundred billion (probably more?), are we seeing a comparable average formed each year today? Another thing that struck me ~ perhaps there's an obvious answer for it ~ is where all this stuff that's accumulating is coming from, since matter is not created or destroyed. Let's rewind back to the Cambrian. All the stuff that today is on top of it ~ where was it back then? And does that mean that if there was less land the sea covered a lot more of Earth's surface? How much would not be underwater? Finally, I am interested in the accepted response to so-called "poly-strate trees" that span several fossil layers. (This also relates back to my earlier question of how we tell the difference between layers) I have searched and found responses in years-old topics from forums that I did not completely understand or that I would like to ask further questions of. In the interest of honesty I'll reveal that I'm a creationist, but don't label me as irrational and ignorant. I'm trying to gain a real understanding of how what the geologic layers are, how it is believed that they were formed, and how it relates to fossils and dating, because whenever I read things I have questions and you can't ask authors to clarify, expound, or rebut. Thank you for any responses to all or any of these questions.

Not necessarily statistics, just a general idea about what end of the spectrum the probabilities lie. A guaranteed way to avoid STDs is (please correct me if this is wrong) for two virgins to only have sex with each other. My ignorant but interesting hypothesis is whether or not the ancient biblical model of sex within marriage is actually the safest and healthiest way to live. That's where the probablities become important. You are statistically more likely to be in a car accident if you regularly travel in cars than if you never leave your house. So what? It's not a big enough risk to stop people from driving. Similarly, you are statistically more likely to get an STD if you are sexually active than if you only have sex with one partner for your entire life, but is that significant enough to matter to the average person any more than car crashes?

Thanks. Are we agreed then that even "proper" condom use does not guarantee the prevention of STDs? It then becomes a measure of risk. Is it comparable to the chance every time you drive that you will get in a car accident, freqent enough and yet also individually rare enough that the risk is not worth avoiding vehicles? Or is it more like the chance every time you get online that you will get a virus, probably happens to every computer after awhile and yet hopefully not serious enough to cause any actual damage? In other words, is it for the most part avoidable no matter how many times you have sex, or, if you regularly have sex with more than one partner are you bound to get one sooner or later? Thanks again, General Veritas

Editors of Wikipedia report that in general people who use condoms are 70% or 80% less likely to receive a given STD. I would like to know if any members of this scientific community can give me a better idea of the percentages involved with and without condom use in regard to STDs in order to work on a hypothesis of mine. My ultimate question is, what is the likelihood, probability, or chance for an average sexually active male, using a condom, to receive an STD from intercouse with another sexually average woman (or vice versa). Thank you for your time, shardsofnarsil

The purpose of this thread is not to debate whether or not any woman should be president, or whether or not a specific woman should be president. I am aware that there is a percentage of American citizens who believe, whether for religious, sexist, biological, societal, or other reasons, that the position of the President of the United States should not be held by a woman. I am simply trying to get some idea of what that percentage is. Don't bog down in extreme hypothetical what-if situations. In general, would you vote for a woman candidate? (If your response is something like, "Well, it depends..." then your answer is yes. I am looking for the percentage who, under normal circumstances, believe it is inherently unacceptable or unwise for a woman to be President.) Results will be posted and analyzed on my blog in two weeks.

Thanks for all the info! The split functionality is necessary to explain a crucial part of the plot... as I currently have it, he gets beat up and his left eye is punched, causing him to temporarily lose sight in that eye. That means he can only see with his right eye---or, only see sounds, not light. This causes him to be really dazed and confused, relating to why he falls into the water (it's just slightly complicated). Basically, I needed him to temporarily only be able to see sounds, and the first thing I came up with was for each eye to be different, and one of them to be temporarily knocked out.

I am trying to write a story that involves a main character who sees sounds as colors with his right eye (but he sees normally with his left eye). I have begun to research online and have found that there is a genuine medical condition, synesthesia (or synaesthesia), in which people's senses get confused, and they see sounds (among other things). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows a lot about this condition and could give me some specifics (if not, I'll just wade through a myriad of internet pages). I especially would like to know about the form the color takes when a sound is heard. Do the colors shoot out from the source like rays of light and just kinda dissipate with distance? Does the light continue only as long as the sound is being produced? Does volume affect the intensity of the light? Or does the object just kind of take on a color? I'm just trying to obtain a mental image of what it would be like to have this form of synesthesia. But any other related comments would still be helpful. Thanks! Edmond the Hun

Thanks a lot. I definitely want to get as much science right as possible, which is why I'm asking questions on here. It's not imperative that they can live on the planet completely naturally, without space suits. In my story, humans need to live on Venus because there's a special element there that facilitates hyperspace travel and is in high demand in the solar system. So it's fine if they wear space suits, they just have to be able to live there so they can set up a colony and mine the metal. I'm cordially avoiding Mars simply because I've read a number of science fiction stories that take place on Mars, but none on Venus, and I want to try something a little different. Shards'

well i'm making up a phase of matter for my science fiction novel to get around einstien's hyperspace theories. i figure if we keep discovering more phases it's not too far-fetched to assume there's more we haven't discovered, and it also wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that maybe Einstein's theory only applies to matter in the phases we are familiar with, and if we could figure out how to convert a solid into "hypermatter," it could travel at speeds faster than light. (does that sounds plausible enough?) so anyway that's all speculative and does nothing to answer your question but it's fun to think about shards'

Thanks, I am aware that temperatures on Venus go into the eight and nine hundreds, and that the atmospheric pressure is about 90 times that of Earth's. But I'm trying to be creative and work around those obstacles.

Hey! I'm preparing to write a science fiction novel. A central part of it involves a race of humans genetically altered to breathe carbon dioxide instead of oxygen so they could live on planets like Venus. I'm curious as to what conjectures, ideas, or theories any of you could present on how CO2 would affect the body differently than oxygen. Would it affect skin color? blood color? how long they could hold their breath? I'm not interested in whether it's possible or not. After all, this is science fiction. But assuming it was possible, what would it be like? Any ideas, from the mundane to the far-fetched, will be very appreciated. Thanks Josh