Jump to content


Diamond Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,510 Excellent

1 Follower


  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

2,265 profile views
  1. We don't always agree, but that was a very good summary of the 4 kingdoms, and Rome's history through the ages. Due to living in the times of the decline of Turkey, I have underestimated Turkey's role in the past. But more recently I've come to see that Turkey has largely been the more significant of the two parts of Rome, up until WWI. Turkeys leader Erdogan is planning a resurge in Turkeys power, creating a Turkish Union and reintroducing the Caliphate in Istanbul. This could very well be the rise of the 10 horns, not in Europe as previously thought, but rather in the Middle East.
  2. Dan 7 defines beasts as 4 kingdoms and 4 kings. If it said 4 kingdoms and about 30 kings, I would think of human kings. But these kings must last for hundreds of years if there are only 4 of them, 1 for each beast. Daniel 10 clarifies that regional demon kings are a spiritual reality. In Rev we have a further hint that a beast is a demon king. The beast comes out of the bottomless pit, a place for demons , Abaddon also comes from there (Rev 9). Neither a human king, nor an empire come out of pits, yet that description fits a demon coming out of a pit. So I believe the 4 beasts are 4 regional demon kings. 1 of them is thrown into the lake of fire at the second coming (Rev 19), this could be a major reason why Israel is so holy in the millennial age. The demon prince of the Syria/Israel area is destroyed in the lake of fire. Yet the other 3 demon princes are allowed to live on. Satan is in the bottomless pit, beast 4 is in the lake of fire, so temptation is vastly reduced during the millennium. Yet there is some temptation, due to those 3 regional princes allowed to live on (Persia, Greece, Babylon)
  3. The only study im aware of that showed similarity specifically said "superficial" similarity. Superficial means not meaningful, just surface. Kindly repost a link if I somehow missed anything.
  4. Once again you are missing the logic of the conversation. We are discussing theoretical scenarios, not proving scenarios in this particular discussion: He claimed that if decay has slowed down it would cause the earth to look younger. I am saying that it would make the earth look older. I dont think he follows how they apply the current rate of decay to the parent/daughter isotopes to get dates. In our other discussion, also theoretical, he claimed if decay was faster in the past, life would die of radiation. I am saying that fast or slow decay would reach the same equilibrium over time.
  5. The world only seems old because they are comparing current slow rates of decay, to the relative ratios of parent/daughter isotopes. If decay actually was a lot faster during the time most of the daughter isotope was forming, then we would be overestimating the age of the earth. I don't think you understand my point about equilibrium. Unstable parent isotopes are formed when igneous rock forms, if this was all decaying rapidly, or slowly, the net decay would always be the same rate as the formation of the unstable isotopes. The same. Not dangerous at all.
  6. You obviously were not following our discussion. He was claiming that if decay was faster in times past, that would be dangerous for life. I responded by saying that logic is not correct. If everything decayed rapidly as fast as iron, there would still be an equilibrium whereby the radioactivity that is produced is equal to the decay (radioactivity lost). This is common sense, even if not understood by many.
  7. You obviously do not know what a precursor is. I don't deny that organisms like early bacteria, early eukaryotes and small shelleys existed before the Cambrian. I do not deny that. They however are not precursors of the Cambrian organisms. PRECURSOR: a person or thing that comes before another of the SAME KIND The link confirms they come before, no one denies that, but it does nothing to show that Ediaran fossils are in any manner of the same kind. I don't see how faulty timeframes prove evolution. We are looking at a creation event, followed by radiations from niche environments (Eg Siberia) whenever conditions change. This explains the fossil record in a better manner.
  8. The time frames are under dispute due to the many reasons brought up in this thread and many more reasons. You say Ediacaran fossils are good candidates for the ancestors of Cambrian arthropods. My response is : 1) where's your phylogenic analysis. Can you refer me to any studies where they have confirmed links between any particular Ediacaran small Shelley and a particular early Cambrian athropod 2) Ediacaran small shellies also lack fossil precursors, that's the main problem 3) even if you find that one Cambrian organism has a fossil precursor in the Ediacaran, what about the other millions of organisms? You still have a huge problem.
  9. I'm not saying decay will be speeded up, I'm saying decay slowed down. If the planet is producing a steady flow of radioactive igneous rocks, the radiation will be at equilibrium, decay equals production. This equilibrium will be reached no matter the speed of decay. Then during a period of stunted decay, it takes time to reach equilibrium again, with a dangerous build up of radioactivity. Just because it will be dangerous to suddenly decay the build up of radioactivity, does not mean it was dangerous back then at equilibrium levels when no build up existed.
  10. There are no ancestors. Only under evolutionary assumptions would you see an early primitive eukaryote or bacteria and assume it's an ancestor without seeing transitional fossils. It's an earlier fossil sure, but the evidence of it being an ancestor to millions of organisms that appeared later is frankly missing. A lack of evidence is not evidence.
  11. I've heard that argument before, but it just doesn't make sense. There would have been equilibrium back then, as there is now. The net effect remains the same.
  12. Nah. If you do the research, the Cambrian Explosion is still a huge problem. A lack of evidence is not evidence. Wikipedia: Cambrian Explosion: The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[14] and in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin discussed the then inexplicable lack of earlier fossils as one of the main difficulties for his theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.[15] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, WITHOUT PRECURSOR https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/new_precambrian/ Ediacarans lack the complex body plans of the Cambrian animals. And even if one were to accept the Ediacarans (or the embryos) as stepping stones, "the total time encompassed by the Ediacaran and Cambrian radiations still remains exceedingly brief relative to the expectations and requirements of a modern neo-Darwinian view of the history of life" (p. 87). https://evolutionnews.org/2014/10/new_precambrian/ the story is recounted in both Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt and in the Illustra film Darwin’s Dilemma. The presence of embryos in the Precambrian didn’t solve the Cambrian explosion problem then, and it doesn’t now. In fact, they make the problem worse, because they show that the Precambrian strata were perfectly capable of preserving transitional forms, had they existed. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/04/lighting-the-fuse-for-the-cambrian-explosion/ In work that led to Australia and back, researchers believe that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life. The Cambrian Explosion was a watershed in the Earth’s biological history. Over a relatively brief span of geologic time, large-bodied, hard-shelled animals appear in the fossil record for the first time. The event is also known for the diversity of life it spawned, including almost all phyla of animals alive today. Phyla are broad classifications of life, such as Chordata (or vertebrates), which includes mammals, reptiles, and birds. Scientists have long puzzled over the sudden appearance of these complex creatures because they must have evolved from precursors that appear to be missing from the pre-Cambrian fossil record. I find that Harvard article pretty amusing, the fossil precursors are still missing but scientists think they may have found some eggs which may be from soft bodied creatures that they are kinda hoping may be precursors to Cambrian organisms. Let them hope that evolution is true in response to millions of organisms just appearing, like a massive creation event. That's how far actual scientists have got to solving the sudden appearance of millions of fossils, in the meantime you and Barbarian have solved the dilemma of the Cambrian Explosion by copying and pasting some irrelevant studies. You should let them know you have solved it all.
  13. You probably think that article had some relevance. All it is saying is that in an area that they normally don't find small Shelly's they found some. The article is not implying that those fossils are ancestral to the trilobite.
  14. Haha There are so many examples of this, you just cannot trust their dates. I would rather go with the Bible than believe their inconsistencies and errors.
  • Create New...