Rimstone Formation

Alan | March 8, 2010 12:51 PM | Edit

The photographer is in Belize right now doing more photos and mapping.

Mike Elzinga | March 8, 2010 1:29 PM | Edit

Neat!

Like a big, macroscopic, aperiodic quasi-crystal complete with embedded dislocations.

Is the width 8 meters, or the height?

fnxtr replied to comment from Mike Elzinga | March 8, 2010 2:59 PM | Edit

Mike Elzinga said:

Like a big, macroscopic, aperiodic quasi-crystal complete with embedded dislocations.

Um… right. I was just going to say that. :-)

Alan | March 8, 2010 9:03 PM | Edit

Is the width 8 meters, or the height?

It is 8 Meters high.

Robert Byers | March 8, 2010 11:56 PM | Edit

Formations in caves etc are important to biblical creationists. Dates for growth are thrown against ti try to prove a earth older then a few thousand years. So this formation could be from a slow growth since after the flood or episodes since. Or it could rather have been created within a week or so and any further action has been beside the point. If so the origin of such a quick growth could simply be what created the cave or passage in the first place. therefore being simply a last act.

Ravilyn.Sanders | March 9, 2010 7:14 AM | Edit

I don’t know about you evilutionists. But to me, these stalactites and stalagmites look very much designed. Only dogmatic Darwin worshipers could be dumb enough to believe that these stalactites and stalagmites would know where to start growing so that eventually meet at a point, conjoin, become a pillar and hold the roof of the cave up.

There is symmetry in the formations, symmetry means information, symmetry means reduction in disorder, reduction in disorder is reduction in entropy and entropy can not be reduced by random naturalistic mechanistic processes. If these formations are “natural” then they violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The pathetic inability of the theory of evolution to account for the cave formations completely disproves any credibility the Big Bang Theory might have. It stretches the credulity of the American Public, 62% of whom don’t believe evolution anyway, that these scientists would confidently see amino acids and methane in planets and moons in the sky, when they cant see that mud-to-stalactite evolution is impossible.

[Checklist:

1. Denounciation of scientists and science? Check.

2. Specious argument? Check.

3. Conflated unrelated fields? Check.

4. Sounds sciency enough? Check.

5. Made up statistics and poll numbers? Check.

6. Remember to erase the check list before posting? oops]

Dave Luckett | March 9, 2010 8:22 AM | Edit

Beware the quote miner, Ravilyn, not to mention the creoplagiarist. I wouldn’t be surprised if that post were quoted (in part) on one of the more loopy creo sites, over your distinguished name, with a “see, we told ya”.

Rolf Aalberg replied to comment from Robert Byers | March 11, 2010 6:28 AM | Edit

Robert Byers said:

Formations in caves etc are important to biblical creationists. Dates for growth are thrown against ti try to prove a earth older then a few thousand years. So this formation could be from a slow growth since after the flood or episodes since. Or it could rather have been created within a week or so and any further action has been beside the point. If so the origin of such a quick growth could simply be what created the cave or passage in the first place. therefore being simply a last act.

You could be an alien from outer space. Prove me wrong. DNA doesn’t count as evidence.

Keelyn replied to comment from Ravilyn.Sanders | March 11, 2010 7:56 AM | Edit

Ravilyn.Sanders said:

I don’t know about you evilutionists. But to me, these stalactites and stalagmites look very much designed. Only dogmatic Darwin worshipers could be dumb enough to believe that these stalactites and stalagmites would know where to start growing so that eventually meet at a point, conjoin, become a pillar and hold the roof of the cave up.

There is symmetry in the formations, symmetry means information, symmetry means reduction in disorder, reduction in disorder is reduction in entropy and entropy can not be reduced by random naturalistic mechanistic processes. If these formations are “natural” then they violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The pathetic inability of the theory of evolution to account for the cave formations completely disproves any credibility the Big Bang Theory might have. It stretches the credulity of the American Public, 62% of whom don’t believe evolution anyway, that these scientists would confidently see amino acids and methane in planets and moons in the sky, when they cant see that mud-to-stalactite evolution is impossible.

[Checklist:

1. Denounciation of scientists and science? Check.

2. Specious argument? Check.

3. Conflated unrelated fields? Check.

4. Sounds sciency enough? Check.

5. Made up statistics and poll numbers? Check.

6. Remember to erase the check list before posting? oops]

No doubt that all makes perfect sense to Byers higher encephalon processes.

Frank J | March 12, 2010 5:37 AM | Edit

Ravilyn Sanders:

You forgot:

7 - Divert attention away from the fact that you are unable to make the evidence converge on any particular alternate age of the formations, even with “playing favorites” with the data. If you must mention any ages, just focus on how the “Darwinists” got the wrong age. Spin it to get as many “kinds” of YEC, OEC and “don’t ask, don’t tell” evolution-denier under the big tent.

Update

Categories:

Tags:

10 Comments

About this Entry

Categories