View allAll Photos Tagged Reasoning
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed against the sea wall in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Many other examples, in different situations can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 25/04/2018, strata/layers formed up against the sea wall.
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Reasoning to shoot HDR on a cloudy day allows for me to get the definition in the clouds and get past the glare of the windows. If i didn't do so, the sky would look flat and I don't believe I would have been able to see the lights and walls inside the building and get the clouds.
The reasoning man who scorns the prejudices of simpletons necessarily becomes the enemy of simpletons; he must expect as much, and laugh at the inevitable.
— Marquis de Sade
Sweater - vintage
Leopard Skirt - Express $25.00
Coral-ish top - vintage (was actually my moms)
Belt - Forever 21 $8.99
Heels - Reflection $24.99
Today is the National Day of Reason, so I'm celebrating by sharing these logic cookies that I made last night. They include a variety of symbols from the fields of symbolic logic, set theory, boolean algebra, algebraic logic, and other fields. (and I had to throw in Gottfried Leibniz's integral symbol and Leonhard Euler's summation Sigma!)
If you browse the messages here on Flickr, you find many people saying that half size sensors give a better reach than full size sensors, but this idea is based on an erroneous reasoning.
Optically, the only difference between a full size and a half size sensor camera is the size of the element which records the image. The sensor size concerns the very last stage of image acquisition, it comes after the passage of the image through the lens, we all agree on this, don’t we? Then, how could the sensor size have an influence on PREVIOUS stages of image acquisition? To me, this is a logical absurdity.
Let's make a comparison: if your torch has an adjustable beam focus, does it bring you closer to the subject if you make the beam narrower? Of course not. It's the same with a half size sensor: it doesn't bring you closer in any way. What happens is that it only sees the central part of the image (50 % of what a full size sensor sees). This changes the field of view, but all other variables stay the same, including depth of field, angle of view and reach. In other words, a 35mm half size lens is not equivalent to a 50mm full size lens, it is equivalent to a 35mm full size lens with the outer parts of the image missing.
In summary, changing angles of view (say, from 50 to 85mm) changes depth of field, enlargement (reach), composition, etc. Changing sensor sizes (say, from FX to DX) changes nothing except composition.
For more information, see Nasim Mansurov's very good article at photographylife.com/equivalent-focal-length-and-field-of-.... Another explanation is given by Jordan Steele: admiringlight.com/blog/full-frame-equivalence-and-why-it-.... Thanks to @KameraKevin to give me this reference.
To avoid distorting a model's face, you need to leave enough distance between you and her, whatever the lens and sensor you use. Thanks to Danny Poza (below) to emphasize that perspective depends on distance (and distance only).
To see the deforming effect associated with distance, have a look on gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify....
A picture complements this diagram: www.flickr.com/photos/pierre_et_nelly/13303992404/.
Is Chocolate Good for Your Heart?
Why a little, in moderation, may be beneficial
Chocolate has gotten a lot of media coverage in recent years because it's believed that it may help protect your cardiovascular system. The reasoning being that the cocoa bean is rich in a class of plant nutrients called flavonoids.
Flavonoids help protect plants from environmental toxins and help repair damage. They can be found in a variety of foods, such as fruits and vegetables. When we eat foods rich in flavonoids, it appears that we also benefit from this "antioxidant" power.
Antioxidants are believed to help the body's cells resist damage caused by free radicals that are formed by normal bodily processes, such as breathing, and from environmental contaminants, like cigarette smoke. If your body does not have enough antioxidants to combat the amount of oxidation that occurs, it can become damaged by free radicals. For example, an increase in oxidation can cause low-density lipoprotein (LDL), also known as "bad" cholesterol, to form plaque on the artery walls.
Flavanols are the main type of flavonoid found in cocoa and chocolate. In addition to having antioxidant qualities, research shows that flavanols have other potential influences on vascular health, such as lowering blood pressure, improving blood flow to the brain and heart, and making blood platelets less sticky and able to clot.
These plant chemicals aren’t only found in chocolate. In fact, a wide variety of foods and beverages are rich in flavonols. These include cranberries, apples, peanuts, onions, tea and red wine.
Are all types of chocolate healthy?
Before you grab a chocolate candy bar or slice of chocolate cake, it’s important to understand that not all forms of chocolate contain high levels of flavanols.
Cocoa naturally has a very strong, pungent taste, which comes from the flavanols. When cocoa is processed into your favorite chocolate products, it goes through several steps to reduce this taste. The more chocolate is processed (through things like fermentation, alkalizing, roasting, etc.), the more flavanols are lost.
Most commercial chocolates are highly processed. Although it was once believed that dark chocolate contained the highest levels flavanols, recent research indicates that, depending on how the dark chocolate was processed, this may not be true. The good news is that most major chocolate manufacturers are looking for ways to keep the flavanols in their processed chocolates. But for now, your best choices are likely dark chocolate over milk chocolate (especially milk chocolate that is loaded with other fats and sugars) and cocoa powder that has not undergone Dutch processing (cocoa that is treated with an alkali to neutralize its natural acidity).
What about all of the fat in chocolate?
You may be surprised to learn that chocolate isn’t as bad for you as once believed.
The fat in chocolate comes from cocoa butter and is made up of equal amounts of oleic acid (a heart-healthy monounsaturated fat also found in olive oil), stearic and palmitic acids. Stearic and palmitic acids are forms of saturated fat. You may know that saturated fats are linked to increases in LDL cholesterol and the risk of heart disease.
But, research shows that stearic acid appears to have a neutral effect on cholesterol, neither raising nor lowering it. Although palmitic acid does affect cholesterol levels, it only makes up one-third of the fat calories in chocolate. Still, this does not mean you can eat all the dark chocolate you’d like.
First, be careful about the type of dark chocolate you choose: chewy caramel-marshmallow-nut-covered dark chocolate is by no means a heart-healthy food option. Watch out for those extra ingredients that can add lots of extra fat and calories. Second, there is currently no established serving size of chocolate to help you reap the cardiovascular benefits it may offer, and more research is needed in this area. However, we do know that you no longer need to feel guilty if you enjoy a small piece of dark chocolate once in a while.
So, for now, enjoy moderate portions of chocolate (e.g., 1 ounce) a few times per week, and don’t forget to eat other flavonoid-rich foods like apples, red wine, tea, onions and cranberries.
my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/nutrition/chocola...
A Northeaster last night gave this 34th St. scene the Gotham City look but where's Batman?
Origins The birth of Gotham City is one shrouded in both mystery and mysticism. Millennia ago, an evil warlock was buried alive beneath what would one day become the central island of Gotham. It is alleged that while the warlock laid in a state of torpor, his evil essence seeped into the soil, poisoning the ground with his dark, corruptive touch. By the warlock's own reasoning, he claims that he fathered the modern spirit of Gotham City and has even taken to calling himself Doctor Gotham. [1]
The territory surrounding Doctor Gotham's burial spot was also the home of an ancient Native American tribe known as the Miagani. The Miagani inhabited the Gotham islands several centuries before European explorers ever crossed the Atlantic. The Miagani tribe is no longer in existence, and there is much speculation as to their final fate. One posited theory suggests that a shaman named Blackfire came to them, proclaiming to be a holy messenger. Within short order however, Blackfire took control of the Miagani and proved to be a cruel and evil tyrant. The Miagani chieftain Chief Paleface demanded that Blackfire leave the tribe, but the shaman would not be silenced, and he struck down Paleface with his staff, killing him. The other Miagani revolted against Blackfire. They shot him with their arrows and tied him to a pole to die. Blackfire didn't die though, so the Miagani sealed him inside of a cave. They erected a totem in front of the tomb as a warning sign of the evil that resided within. Some sources cite that Shaman Blackfire emerged from the cave and used his power to cause a blight across the land. As such, the Miagani had little choice but to abandon their homes in search of fertile ground. Two days into their journey, a rival tribe came upon them and slaughtered all of the Miagani. Some legends however, say that it was actually Shaman Blackfire who murdered them. [2]
17th CenturyIn 1609, the Dutch East India Company selected English explorer Henry Hudson to chart an easterly passage to Asia. Along his journey, he surveyed the Northeastern coastal region of what would one day become the United States. [3] Following Hudson's course, Dutch pioneers sailed for this New World and began populating the region once inhabited by the Miagani. The pioneers established themselves in two different colonies. One colony was set up along the shore where fishing was plentiful, and the other was developed further inland. The latter colony came upon the sealed cave with the Miagani totem erected before it. Unaware of its significance, they ignored the totem's warning and loosed Shaman Blackfire from the cave. The colonists were never seen again. Two days later, men from the coastal community traveled to visit their inland brothers. When they arrived in the village, they found the town deserted. Pools of blood dotted the streets, but there were no bodies. A trapper claimed to have seen the image of a naked Indian walking from the woods to the settlement. [4]
19th Century During the latter half of the 18th century and the early half of the 19th century, Gotham was a major port city known as Gotham Town. Beginning as early as 1799, Darius Wayne began construction on a family estate that would eventually become known as Wayne Manor.
On January 1st, 1800, the frontiersman known as Tomahawk became embroiled in a fight with a British spy named Lord Shilling. Shilling had disguised himself as Tomahawk's close ally Stovepipe in order to get in close enough to procure a piece of mystical amber that Tomahawk had acquired from occultist Jason Blood years earlier. The two fought one another inside of an immense, bat-filled cavern not far from the Wayne estate. During the fight, the piece of amber fell into a stream of molten fluid. Shilling reached to retrieve it, and the amber fused itself to his hand, mummifying his entire arm. Tomahawk severed the arm and returned with it to Gotham Town. The arm and amber later became known as the Claw of Aelkhünd. The cavern in which the two fought one another would later service modern age super-hero Batman as the Batcave. [5]
20th CenturyDuring the 1950s, Gotham evolved with the changing times, particularly in light of the paranoia perpetuated by the Cold War. Various bomb shelters were erected all throughout the city. By the 1960s, Gotham City planners began an ambitious project called the Underground Highway. Beginning at Fourth Avenue, they began building an actual subterranean thoroughfare designed to link with the subway system. They only managed to complete two-hundred yards worth of tunnel before budget cuts forced them to abandon the project. In later years, the unfinished highway became a haven for the homeless and even a few criminals such as Killer Croc. [6]
No Man's LandGotham City had suffered the results of a magnitude 7.6 earthquake in an event commonly referred to as the "Cataclysm". With hopes for rehabilitating the broken city, the United States government declared it a No Man's Land, which effectively quarantined the entire island city. Eventually, thanks in no small part to the financial and political machinations of Lex Luthor—dipping his hands, as ever, in both legitimate and illegal means to achieve his goals—Gotham City was released and rebuilt, and rejoined the United States.
"THE FICTION OF MORALITY"
How are we to live a morally illuminated life when the darkness really lies in
our nature. We can turn on all the lights we want but that part of us which
lies in the dark can never be resolved. Is there existence of morality? Does real moral reasoning exist? Or is something 'moral' to us only because we subjectively think that it's moral?
Photo Credit : Saad Solaiman © ANCIENT ART
And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in
your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Arise, and take up your pallet and walk?’ But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—He said to the paralytic—“I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.”
-Mark 2:5-11
Jesus performed miracles to prove He was God (Mark 2:10).
But Jesus forgave sins because He was God.
Consider how this great miracle is different from any
other.
The forgiveness of sins is the miracle that:
• Meets the greatest need – Because sin and separation from God is man’s greatest
problem, restoration and reconciliation to God is man’s greatest need.
• Has the greatest impact - Physical healing is temporary. Forgiveness of sins results in
eternal life. It is the miracle that lasts forever!
• Fulfills the greatest purpose - Jesus said He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).
The fulfillment of this purpose accomplishes God’s highest good and brings Him the
greatest glory.
• Required the greatest price - It required the death of God’s Son.
• Available to the greatest number of people - “Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:13).
-The Hope-Lesson 49
for more details:
www.flickr.com/photos/j316/2982740217/
I wait for the LORD, my soul waits,
and in his word I put my hope.
My soul waits for the Lord
more than watchmen wait for the morning,
more than watchmen wait for the morning.
Psalm 130:5-6
X-Ray of a male skeleton with colored puzzle pieces in his head for the concept of reasoning..Isolated on a black background
Obviously you can see that I'm staring out my window, but my reasoning is all the more better. Everyone it's that fall season again! I say more like it jumped from spring to summer to winter in like one month. I live in Kansas, so yesterday it started to snow while I was in class, but today I'm sitting here at my computer and it's sunny as can be outside. So whether it's sunny for you or it's snowing like a blizzard outside. It's freaking fall, I'm so stoked it's fall. Now I can wear my uggs, drink hot cocoa, and be cozy. Maybe I can even cuddle a lot with my boyfriend?
Who knows! Probably not....but anyways enjoy my picture...
I literally stood for 10 whole bloody seconds in the worst stance ever and don't mind the zits on my face, I'm a teen and it happens, live with it :)
It's funny. When I started my high rises and skyscraper kits. I was so scared that I was building them too tall. They looked so out of place. I guess because I didn't have many, and beside the smaller heritage style buildings they just looked massive. Now that I've built many more and the city structures are starting to fill in a city. I see that the original buildings I built should have been built taller!
Funny hey!!! (Canadian lingo) anyways, I've decided that the building on the right, the DPM building is going higher! :D It looks to small now. Thankfully when I did build this DPM kitbashed skyscraper I contemplated making four stories shorter! Wow, thankfully I didn't make that mistake. I have decided I'm going to make it either 5 or 9 stories taller. I'll add a fourth stepped up section between the base and the now second section. There's enough room to custom build a six window wide by 6 window wide square section. I think it'd look better if it was 9 stories than 5 stories. If it was 5 stories it'd look too much like the base. So I'm looking for 6 more of these kits I guess!!!
So much work and time! But all in good detail and a one day awesome train layout!
Daniel Radcliffe, photo credited to Forbes.
It’s easy to overlook the real struggles of alcoholism when we’re dealing with celebrity headlines and gossip. We know which actor or actress did what when they were intoxicated and how silly they made themselves look, but when it comes down to it, it’...
hopetreatmentcenter.com/2015/12/08/daniel-radcliffe-and-t...
Jeffrey.
I daren’t say anything about your filters really, in case anything slips out. You know my tendency to make everything I write universal property, and I don’t want to transgress. I won’t mention your characters or their conundrums. I like your reasoning, the synopsis you have given. I recognize some of those megalomaniacal male tendencies you are describing, and why wouldn’t I? I know that ‘lost boy’ behaviour. It’s even attractive until one reaches a certain age, then it slopes off through unfortunate, and heads downhill rather swiftly towards downright tragedy. Applying the brakes at that stage is no party, let me tell you. Sometimes I feel as if I had been worn down up to the knees, a would-be demi-legged, own trumpet blowing, Falstaff, but then this isn’t about me. All these men searching for mammys, what can I say other than sorry about my gender, and thank Yahweh that I am a cis-gender homo (can I call myself that anymore?).
I think you can tell that I have arrived at the point that I am at, now, not at all sure what I am, or am not, permitted to call myself. I fear that I, at last, know what and who I am, but I am not at all sure if being that is acceptable to the evolving world. Luckily, we will all be dead soon enough. Now that’s something to really look forward to for the terminally bewildered. I like the idea of ‘A Death’ as the inflexion point of this ‘Comedy’ you are constructing. I have that funny death story to tell yet properly. That one where Jeffrey suddenly shot upright, screaming at his parents who were quibbling over what to watch on the TV. He screamed fiercely at them “I’m dying, I get to choose the video!”. It was gloriously well said. I do love the tyranny of the dying. I do love the abject tyranny of the victim (my specialty). Feck it, I will go the whole hog. I do love tyranny. I also love saying ‘Feck’, when everyone understands that you are insinuating another vowel in the place of that ‘e’. I love that feck is proper and Irish, a softening of that blow, liked a dropped ‘h’, that sort of softening and lilting.
He chose 'Singing in the Rain' and collapsed back into bed raving madly about having to make three different types of pies to prepare for some party or other in his head.
I did my job. I pressed the button and released more morphine, through the catheter in his chest, awash in the 'poor meeees'.
mea culpa, mea culpa,
mea máxima culpa.
Later, I made a drawing about his wonderful, life-affirming, self-assertion. I photographed myself beside it, but discovered, whilst looking at it later, that I seemed to have disappeared.
I guess that's how things go. (Secretly, I love removing myself, but don't tell anyone).
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Photo 04/06/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
~
The general consensus in photography is that you don't shoot at the height of the day. I can understand the reasoning, but... I dunno.... sometimes it seems to work out just fine. I think such is the case here, where we're presented with a stunning view from Dorr Mountain in Acadia National Park (Maine), looking south toward Otter Cove, Blackwoods, and Southwest Harbor, where a few lobsters await us after the hike.
The 'model' is my lovely bride, Susan, and yes... that's a teddy bear in her pack. "Bobo, the Magnificent" he calls himself.
As with my previous image, Boats on Somes Sound in Early Morning Fog, I employed the approach of working with multiple merged frames in 32-bit mode, without the 'standard' tonemapping that's used with Photomatix or other HDR programs. It seems the results are much more crisp and 'realistic', while still bringing in the extended dynamic range that multiple frames can provide.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 03/03/2019
This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied.
Some of the wealth of field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimantary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown beach, Isle of Wight. Formed 07/12/17 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers and other geological features are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
When the American writer Nicholas Carr began investigating whether the Internet was ruining our minds, the subject of his new book, he restricted his access to the internet, took a break in the mail and hung up their accounts on Twitter and Facebook.
In his new book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains , he says the network is depriving us of the depth of reasoning ability.
Carr raised the controversial issue in 2008 that "Google was making us stupid" and decided to deepen their research on how the network affects our brain. His book examines the history of reading and science of how the use of different media affects our mind. Exploring how society has passed from oral tradition to the written word and then to the internet, he details how to reprogram our brains to adjust to new information sources. Read the Internet has fundamentally changed the way we use our brains.
The amount of text, photos, videos, music and links to other pages combined with incessant interruptions in the form of text messages, emails, Facebook updates and RSS feeds made our minds get used to catalog, archive and search information. Thus, we developed skills to make decisions quickly, especially visual. On the other hand, every time we read fewer books, essays and longer texts - that would help us to focus, concentration, introspection and contemplation. He says that we are becoming more librarians - are able to find information quickly and choose the best parts - than students who can analyze and interpret data.
The lack of focus obstructs our long-term memory and makes us more distracted. "We were not involved with the task of interpreting our brains," he says. He further claims that, for centuries, the books our brains protected from distractions, to focus our minds to a subject at a time.
But with devices like the Kindle and iPad becoming common, Carr predicts that the books will also change. "New ways of reading require new forms of writing."
If writers supply the chronic need of a distracted society, they inevitably will avoid complex arguments that require sustained attention and write concisely and to pieces, Carr predicts. He even suggests an exercise for those who feel that the internet has made them unable to concentrate, to slow down, turn off your web skills and practice of contemplation, introspection and reflection.
It is quite clear from what we know about brain science that if you do not exercise specific cognitive abilities, you end the losing. If you get distracted easily, not feel the same way you think if you watch
(Nicholas Carr)
Scientists say they juggle e-mail, phone and other sources of information changes the way people think. Our concentration is being hampered by heavy flow of information. This flow causes a primitive impulse to respond to immediate threats or opportunities. The stimulus causes excitement - the release of dopamine - addictive. In its absence, is boredom.
While many people say to do several things at the same time, increases productivity, research shows otherwise. The multitasking hinder the selection and concentration necessary to ignore irrelevant information. And even after the person turns off, the thought remains fragmented.
For Stanford students, the difficulty of focusing only on what interests conflict shows a brain that comes from our evolution. Part of the brain acts as a control tower, helping the person to focus on priorities. Primitive parts, such as those that process sight and sound, want it to pay attention to new information, bombarding the control tower. Lower brain functions are on top of larger goals, how to assemble a hut to warn of the danger of a lion nearby. In the modern world, the noise coming from the e-mail passes over the goal of writing a business plan or play ball with his son.
But other research shows that the brain also adapts. Internet users have more brain activity than non-users. They are gaining new circuits of neurons. This is not necessarily good, because it does not mean that we are becoming more intelligent. Our children are born knowing how to program the microwave and stir in the TV settings, but as they grow they will have less independence and critical thinking that other generations. TERRIBLY are accustomed to having everything ready, chewed, from microwave popcorn to the news they receive. We will be increasingly similar to the fat of the movie Wall-E, immersed in so much information that will talk with colleagues via MSN SIDE (and this is already happening in business!). With traditional social relationships being destroyed and replaced by a virtual who holds control of the means of traffic control virtual social relationships. And you think that governments do not know it already? Why is it that Obama had a meeting with all owners of "corridors of information" ?
The music is also a way of inducing changes in the brain. Helps keep the "cattle" as interesting for who controls the gears.
A study was conducted by scientists in a group of rats to study the effects of rock music. The group of rats was exposed to rock music became more disoriented progrssivamente tests, and finally became unable to complete the maze. When the brains of these mice were dissected, it was found that they were subjected to abnormal structural changes. The neurons in your brain (especially in the hippocampus, which is known to be important in learning and memory formation) grew uncontrollably in all directions without making connections with other neurons. Significant increases in messenger RNA, which is involved in memory formation, were also found. I found this news a bit overblown, and not the NAME of the researchers, to search more and found the following:
The student David Merrill repeated the experiment and reached similar conclusions , but could not go very far as the rats who listened to rock killed each other. The study of GM Schreckenberg HH and Bird (1988) shows that mice exposed to disharmonious music (ie, without harmony) developed brain and nerve damage "degradation of performance."
That is, the configuration of the brain will change SIM, especially if children are exposed to it (as we saw at the beginning of the documentary Zeitgeist: Moving Forward ). U.S. 20% of children suffer some type of mental disorder , while 5 million children and adolescents suffer from mental disorder GRAVE.
It is not my intention to blame the rock - because I like and think it's just ONE aspect of the problem - but rather, exposure to a particular type of sound. It changes depending on the country and social group, but we are bombarded by sound types whose resemblance between them is be stressful at percussive edge and away from any harmony. Increasingly our "muses" and "musos" pop sounds will promote more and more bizarre, far from the kind of music that captivated us in the beginning of their careers and getting very close to the sounds that are used to simulate drug (and I do not think it is mere coincidence). Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but do not forget to meditate on what they read, and watch with some detachment "information" that pop up around them.
This is a book I have for sale: The book has a different picture on the cover and is Titled: A FERVENT APPEAL for the PRESENCE of GOD, TRUTH, and AGAINST ALL EVIL, by Anthony (Tony) Sheffield [[ the following table of contents is not in right order as there is an Insert; but the book is copyrighted and very helpful in these doctrines; there is not another book like it on the market and completely persuades the doctrine in absolute proof.
>3.1 Witnesses, Preaching, Verbal Means of Truth & Spirit, and Proof; Open to Truth, God’s Presence, and Neighbors Concerned Verification
>Chp 3 (Addition)- Special Note regarding the Law of Contradiction; More support for the Law of Contradiction/Truth: Love of; Required; Truth in our Constitution; Reasoning’s Strangely FALSE; Truth & Existence; Grammar (Word Law) Law- Statements and Words; Truth, Irrelative of; Carnality Signs; Misinterpreting God’s Word; Light; SPIRIT & TRUTH; Receive Facts; Disorder; Habits appear True
>Chp 4 (Addition) - Study and Seek in Experience by Prayer and Spiritual Senses and Inner Man, Pro3.5-6, 2Cor10.5; Proof and Carefulness/Truth and Righteousness/SERIOUSNESS minded
>5a-22a Guilt, Sin, and Death: Does God clear guilt automatically?; Conditions to clear Guilt; Sin is Guilt; Sin (Guilt) brings Spiritual Death at the Time of the Sin (Guilt); the Death Sin (Guilt) brings is Spiritual
>5a-22ab Why Sin Brings Eternal Death or It Does Bring Eternal Death or How Does It Bring Eternal Death
>Chp 5 (Addition) - Definition of Sin; Not Walking with God or Seeking God, Led by the Spirit; Not Studying God’s Word; Doubtful Things; Where There is No Law; Sin is Evil
>5a-1aEve & Adam
>5a-1z Saul’s Sinning Religion
>5a-6 (Addition) LOVE / RESPECT
>Chp 5a-5a (Addition) - Sin Crucifies Christ; Heb 6, 1Cor 11, and others
>5a-9abImpossible for Sinners to Be Saved
>5a-9a Question and Answer Format: Sinning while Saved, Having God’s Presence, with Truth
>5a-9abc Foolishness, Vanity, Folly - a Serious Matter with God
>5a-11a Too Hard to Live Victoriously
>5a-11abFeels Good to Be Right
>5a-11abc Do Iniquity or Offend, saith the Lord Jesus; A Best Statement from Jesus Earthly Lips
>5a-11d Which One of You Convinceth Me of Sin
>5a-12a (Addition) - Choice is Clear
>5a-12ab Impossible to be Right and Wrong at the Same Time
>5a-12d Cannot Believe or Have Faith with Sin
>5a-12e Willingly yield obedience
>5a-13ab What Doctrines Can We Tolerate??
>5a-8ab Will and Decisions (Choice), The Fact of
>5a-14a Sin Hurts Other Beings
>5a-14b Jehovah DOES NOT Call Good Bad NOR Bad Good
>5a-16aJames 1:15 for Clarity
>5a-18 (Add’n)- (TTT) Temptation, Troubles, Trial (TESTS)
>5a-21 (Addition) - Life
>5a-22 (Addition) - Death Defined
>5a-24aChristian Armor Shows We are to Fit It to Allow No Sin to Enter the Interior or Exterior
>5a-24ab Demonic Activity
>5a-25a Believe Every Statement of the Lord is True
>5a-26 (Addition) - Sin Causes a Separation or Leave of Absence from God’s Presence
>5a-29aCharacter of God
>5a-29abSeal of God
>5a-34 Special Texts; used to support the committing of sin while saved
>5a-34aSerious Physical, Spiritual, and Providential Consequences of Sin
>Chp 7 (Addition) - Law / Discerning good & evil
>Chp 8 (Addition) -Witness of the Spirit/God’s Presence; Laws on Heart; Come to God; no body needed for fellowship; Will; Feelings; Deception; good example vs.; Everyone is following some spirit; Thought (person); Need & Evidence
>8.1a Old Testament - facts about Spirit, Sin, Obedience, Ceremonies
>Chp 10 (Addition) - Cooperation; good basic example; Experience; Righteousness; Sanctification Commanded; >Understanding Deficiency Resolved: Trust & Obey; God’s Presence & Graces; God’s Presence & Idolatry; Repentance addition
>10.1 Desires, Affections, and Intentions
>10.1aSpirituality - Mind & Heart; Priority of; Preparation Place; Needs
>10.1b Spiritual States Of Danger: Intellectual; Intent or Motive; or Will
>10.2Probationary Period and TIME
>10.7 GIFT, Salvation, Pardon, Some Relations of
>5.1 Responsibility; What Makes us Responsible; Timing, God’s Methods & Ways; Ignorance and Young; Foundational Truth & Responsibility, Proofs in Abundance
>8.1 Forgiveness / Pardon
>8.3 Excessive Harshness or Hardness of Heart (Spirit) to Others
>8.2 God wants no one in Hell
>5b-38 Heresy, Reprobateness, and Sinner; Open to Truth, Love It
>5b-37 Encouragements on Dangers, Details, and Boundaries of Sin and the Power of Jesus Blood
>5b-39 There is no Sin that is not Forgivable Except One: Heb 6; Heb 10; Heb 12 -Hard Passages Proved absolutely; Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; Others too
>5b-40 No Amount OR Number of Times of Sin is Unforgivable
>5b-41 God Warns Carefulness, Preparation, Alert, not Overconfident to Confront Temptation; WATCH
>5b-42 Spirit Shall Not Always Strive with You (end physical life)
>5b-43 Sin is Forgivable as While Alive Physically
>5b-44Backsliding (apostasy) Can Cause Worse To Come Upon You
>5b-45Death Can Occur At Any Time and Even Unexpected Times
>5b-46God Warns of Danger Ahead of Time and If Not He Says So
>5b-47What is the “Sin Unto Death”
>5b-47abLittle Sins (small sins)
>5b-48 Mental Capacity Can Be Damaged and to Extent of Loss of Mind
>7.1a (Addition) Law / Spirit
>8.5Gifts of the Spirit / Power with God
>8.6Spirituality, The Kingdom of God; EYE; thoughts & Feelings
>8.6a Creation, Creation Science, Spirituality, Evolution and the Likes
>8.6a1 Good & Evil
>8.6b Pain & Pleasure
>8.7 Special Commandments Avoided by “Churches & Christians”: Food and Drinking in the Church; Sabbath Day; Love God; Vain Foolish Things; Tattoos; Alcohol; Hair; Jewelry; Make-up; Cloths; Radio babbling and riches; TV; Sports; Dancing & the like; Drama, Acting, Fiction
>8.4 Claiming Promises: Special notes; Types of Promises; Truth Standing
>8.3 How Do the Spirit and The Word Work Together; Claiming the Word and the Witness of the Spirit; The Holy Word by the Holy Spirit may be Applied as it is Written Without The Holy Spirit’s Direct Application; The Holy Spirit has the Right to Apply or Discern His Will in Each Case and therefore One Verse May Apply Whereas Another may not; The Spirit and the Word Often Work Together and Must in Some Areas; The Spirit and Jesus without the Word
>Chp 9 (Addition) - Free Will
>9.1 Self
>9.2 Faith / Faith & Law (cont’d in book)
>9.2a Praise & Thanksgiving, Christianity the Religion of
>9.2ab Love & Care
>9.3 Position Folk: Church Folk in position-Rejecting Sound Doctrine
>9.4 Reasons, Motives, and God
>10.3 Judgment; Judging Others; Discernment
>10.3a Rebuke / Correct
>10.4 Hell - an Eternal Place Where the Sinner Will Exist Eternally?
>10.5 Atonement: Basis of; Understandings of Law, Substitutes, Sanctions, Value
>10.6 Cults, Deception, False Christianity, Simplicity Evil, Lunatics, Stupid, Dumb, Craziness, Maniacs, Disordered, etc. Lies, and their Reasons
Chapter 1—How Do We Know God’s Will? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Chapter 2—Proof = Absolute Evidence Presented Herein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 3—Truth and Spirit Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter 4—Heart (Spirit) Matters in Preparing To Hear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
> Call to Humility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
> Call to Honesty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
> Spirit of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
> Fear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
> References for Reading and Truth Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
> History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
> Understanding, Wisdom, Knowledge, Discernment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
> Willing Mind and Heart / Openness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Chapter 5—Sin Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
> Clarity and Soundness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
> Antinomianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
> The Definition of Sin—What Is Sin?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
> God Hates Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Subchapter 5a > Sin Causes Death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5a-1 Line Upon Line, Precept Upon Precept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5a-2 Partiality or Respecter of Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5a-3 Unchangeableness or Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5a-4 Past, Present, Future Sin Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5a-5 The Foolishness To Think God Gave Up and Said, “I’ll Just Have
To Make a Way for Them So They Can Make It While They Sin” . . . . . . . . . . 34
5a-6 Love . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5a-7 Discernment as to Where the Standard Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5a-8 Effects of Sinning Religion on Sinners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5a-9 Christ Died for the Church—Worshippers of God, Not Sinners . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5a-10 Born Again Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5a-11 Victory Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5a-12 Sin Needed To Keep Humble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5a-12a Choice Is Clear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5a-13 Security Feeling, True Security, Spirits, Love of the Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5a-13a Weakness of Sin’s Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5a-14 Unity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5a-15 God Commands When He Knows That We Cannot Perform the Command . 44
5a-16 God’s Main Purpose or Objective—Our Calling
and Christ Our Example Includes No Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5a-17 Assurances to Eternal Life Are Exclusive of Sin and Cannot Have Any Sin . . 46
5a-18 Temptation To Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5a-19 Finding God and Keeping God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5a-20 Wholeheartedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5a-21 L I F E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5a-22 Death Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5a-23 Death and Life—Two Different States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5a-24 Light and Darkness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5a-25 Devil’s Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5a-26 Sin Causes a Separation or Leave of Absence From God’s Presence . . . . . . 56
5a-27 No Separation of Fruit From Tree—Deeds and Person Are in Unity—
Sins and Person Are One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5a-28 Tests of a Christian Are All Sinlessness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5a-29 Comparing Sin in the OT and the NT—Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5a-30 Holy Spirit / God’s Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5a-31 Cause and Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5a-32 Universal and Eternal Law of God—Sin Causes Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5a-33 List of Some Holy Scriptures All Showing That One Willful
(Intentional or Deliberate) Sin Causes Spiritual Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5a-34 Special Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5a-35 Righteous Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5a-36 BLOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
> Sin Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Chapter 6—False Arminianism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
> Regarding Committing of a Certain Type of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
> Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
> Regarding the Practice of Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Chapter 7—Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Chapter 8—Witness of the Spirit / God’s Presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 9—Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Chapter 10—Cooperation (Covenant) Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
> Cooperation or Covenant Relationship Proved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
> How To Enter the Salvation State and How To Be Sanctified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
> Salvation Is a State of Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
> Repentance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
> Obedience and Following Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
> Faith / Belief / Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
> Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
> Salvation Is a State of Being That Requires a
Continuing or an Abiding (Continuing Principle) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
> Grace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
> Righteousness or Holiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
> Perfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
> Chastening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Chapter 11—Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Chapter 12—Worldliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Chapter 13—Devotions—An Intensive Appeal Towards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Chapter 14—Farewell, Dear Heart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
> Appeal Towards a Good Attitude and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
> Departing Plea and Earnest Bid for Your Heart To Yearn for God. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Chapter 15—Final Appeal Towards Sanctification. . . . . . .
According to tradition, how many people were killed in the great fire of London in 1666?
The death toll is traditionally thought to have been small, as only six verified deaths were recorded. This reasoning has recently been challenged on the grounds that the deaths of poor and middle-class people were not recorded.
My Reasoning for choosing Stephen Shore for this assignment; Postmodernism was because I felt that his photos could be an easier replica of today's natural environment. His style of photography included pictures of bland scenery or objects, specifically in the United States, which is what I tried to imitate. He also never really chose dark scenery, but in my case, most of the lighting came from the editing, considering i took this during the night. Most of Shore's photography gave me a Southern vibe, because of the rural scenery. So in order to capture that effect, my picture took a lot of contrasting to turn down the darkness. In order to keep the color alive, I brightened the saturation and the vibrance, giving the shut down popcorn store a more welcoming vibe. In his scenery he included people in the distance of his photos but I chose my picture tostrictly be on the lane of stores and scenery, capturing the edited lighting at the same time.
February 21- February 27
Another busy week of work means photos get put on the back burner. However, I came to realize during this week, while thinking about this photo project I have embarked upon, that this is as much of a photo journal of my life as it is an art project. I realized that it is okay that I don't have a DSLR shot or GoPro shot every week, or something that I have run through Lightroom every week.
Hence this photo. This is my son. He and my other son got dropped off at my school (this is my classroom) by Nana this week. He was so excited about his cookie (apparently we don't give him sweets very often) and he wanted to save it to show mom. That wasn't going to be for a while, so I said how about I take a picture and we can show her the picture. He agreed. I guess my reasoning for posting this picture though was because, after I took it, I realized how much older he is beginning to look and that he is not such a little boy anymore. This in turn made me realize (not for the first time) how important it is to live in each day, and enjoy the little things each day rather than trying to just muddle through the week with the weekend as a goal. Looking forward to seeing what the future weeks have to bring.
www.messersmith.name/wordpress/2010/07/21/its-more-than-p...
Today is a mixed bag. What else is new. Consistency is for those with the patience to organise things. You should see my office. Fortunately, I sleep with the boss (Don't panic. My wife, Eunie, is my boss at the office . . . okay, forget the office thing . . . she's my boss.) so I don't get called on the carpet for having a messy office. Nobody ever comes into the IT Dungeon anyway unless they want something. Therefore, by common sense reasoning, requests that begin with "Whoah, what a mess . . ." are not likely to produce satisfactory results.
I say today's offering is a mixed bag because it includes a couple of "trophy" shots and some others which could appeal only to fish geeks. By the way I am not a fish geek. I am a fish connoisseur.
The Black Saddled Toby (Canthigaster valentini) has got to be one of cutest little fishies on the planet:
This is one of the trophy shots. I have few images of this fish which come even close to this one. I'd call it a specimen shot. Just about everything you need to know, short of dissecting this fish, is in the image. This makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
Some might think of me as an amateur scientist. While this is oh, so true, (at least the amateur part) my feelings about what I present to you here in my images of the magic of Mother Ocean are more akin to art. Sure, I give you the taxonomic names, when I'm reasonably sure of them. The truth is, aside from the fact that I love the way that Latin rolls off the tongue, I don't care much about that. What I really care about is combining my life-long love of photography with the adventure of discovery of new (to me) visions of nature and new ways of visualising them.
For instance. This beautiful colony of Bubble Coral (Plerogyra sinosa) seems to me ethereal. I can't judge how it comes to be. I can't fathom the mystery of how something that looks like this has a reasoned place in the scheme of things. To me it seems magical: Of course, this is not very scientific thought. As empiricists, we're supposed to ignore such mystical ruminations. Yet, I can't escape the idea that when a scientist loses a sense of wonder and ceases to be weighed down by the ponderous yoke of how much we don't know, any true discoveries will be happenstance. When deliberate seeking beyond the "facts" is abandoned, nothing new will learned. We don't even know how much we don't know. Facts lead to more facts. But only seekers find new truths.
But, there is a place for the fervent geek. Witness this very ordinary and wildly uninteresting image of three Sevenstripe Cardinalfish (Apogon novemfasciatus):
I guarantee that it will win no prizes. The fish are just a little blurry. Indeed, I had a couple of choices, based on the image, of what to call them. However, I did see them with my eyes and I have seen them hundreds of times. They are just difficult to photograph, because they are tiny and restless. I take a geek's pleasure knowing that I finally have an image of them. One less fish. One more tiny model car. One more baseball card. One more comic book. One more Star Trek doll. (Actually, I don't think that the collectors like it when you call them dolls.)
Ah, but on to the trophy shots. This is the magnificent (not to be used lightly) Purple Anthea (Pseudanthias tuka):
As any fool can see, it's not just purple. It's got a lot of different colours. In natural light (these were taken by flash) it looks more blue. Nevertheless, you can't miss them. They glow like neon lights. They also have a funny beak-like nose which makes me think of Jimmy Durante.
By the way, here is Jimmy Durante:>center>
See what I mean?
Okay, it's a stretch, I admit. Anyway here is another trophy shot of P. tuka:
And with that, I am running on empty.
Adios.
Brainstorm Session with NCHD Sindh Mar6, 2015 at Karachi University
Brainstorming Session
1. Challenges for universal primary education in Pakistan.
2. Role of NCHD and PHDF to increase the literacy rate.
3. Success and Failure of Plan already implemented.
4. Reasoning for High Drop out of students.
5. Improvement of Infrastructure needed for improving literacy rate.
6. How to incorporate technology for basic education?
7. Capacity building and teachers training programs and etc.
Participants: Mr.Pervaiz Lodhie Member PHDF, Madam Humaira Hashmi Director Operations NCHD Sindh, Mr.Anees Ur Rehman Chairman Fund Raising Committee Rotery Club,Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Choudry Director HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry Karachi University.Mr.Abdul Wajid Shaikh DGM Karachi and Jamshoro, Mr.Daim Janwri DGM Thatta, Mr.Muneer Memon DGM Badin, Mr.Pir Niaz Jan DGM TM Khan, Dr Anwar Rajar DGM Matiari, Mr.Riaz Ahmed Aagro DGM Tando Allahyar, Mr.Sher Muhammad Mangrio ADGM Umer Kot,Mr.Abdul Fatah Moro DGM SBA&N.Feroz,Mr.Ayaz Shaikh DGM Larkana,Mr.Rizawan Memon ADGM Shikarpur, Mr.Javed Mangi ADGM Sukkur,Miss.Qamar u Nisa ADGM Ghotiki,Mr.Ali Madad Bozdar ADGM Jacab abad, Mr.Sajjad Ali Memon PCE, Mr.Hamza Lashari PCL,Miss.Zeesha Khuwaja Provincial Manager.
Madam Humaira Hashmi ( Director Operations NCHD Sindh ) provided detailed presentation about NCHD Programs i.e. UPE, Literacy, BBSYDP Projects and also about MALALA and OWN School initiatives. It also includes the detailed briefing of NCHD’s national and provincial achievements. The achievements and efforts were widely appreciated by the Participants.
Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Choudry Director HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry Karachi University highlighted the importance of education and appreciated the role of NCHD in bridging the gap between strategy formulation and strategy execution to enhance Literacy rate and Universal Primary Education (UPE) with a view to fulfilling Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). He further ensured his volunteer support in teachers’ training and development for the provision of intellectual volunteers for the training of teachers all across the board. He further said that socio-economic development of Brazil, South Korea and Malaysia is largely attributed to effective education systems. In addition to that he urged government to increase budget allocation for the education sector.
Anees Ur Rehman Chairman Fund Raising Committee Rotery Club explained the role of private sector for enhancement of education. He said that Rotery club is already working for improvements in education. He affirmed his support to NCHD and also ensured that they would also undertake filed visits in collaboration with NCHD aiming at enhancement of School initiatives.
Pervaiz Lodhie Member PHDF provided detailed information regarding background of PHDF its working style and the current role. He also explained the collaboration of PHDF with NCHD & Govt of Pakistan. He also conducted interactive session with the participants about the models of UPE and Literacy. He also discussed about the use of technology to improve the education and teacher’s training.
All DGMs shared the achievements of their respective districts in the UPE and Literacy and also provided feedback to further improve the execution of strategies at the district level.
Prevez Lodhi sb appreciated the work, efforts and achievement of NCHD and focused on proper showcasing of NCHD work to share with the national and international donor community to attract them to support education through NCHD. He suggested all DGMs of NCHD to share success story reports & documentaries of schools/ literacy centers on social groups.
He further shared that his meeting with Baligh ur Rehman (Minister for Professional Education and Technical Training) has been fixed in which he will discuss about NCHD.
I'm not sure of the reasoning behind going from "AIR FRANCE" to "AIRFRANCE".. maybe because of the .com URL universe.. it's nice but just kind of linguistically dumb.
See if you can ask someone who just made a demographic statement to restate in terns of reasoning patterns you found.
Practical Empathy: For Collaboration and Creativity in Your Work, Young, Indi. 2015. New York: Rosenfeld Media. rosenfeldmedia.com/books/practical-empathy/
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 25/04/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 06/06/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 18/01/2018 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Taken at 07:11
Introspection is the self-observation and reporting of conscious inner thoughts, desires and sensations. It is a conscious and purposive process relying on thinking, reasoning, and examining one's own thoughts, feelings, and, in more spiritual cases, one's soul. It can also be called contemplation of one's self, and is contrasted with extrospection, the observation of things external to one's self. Introspection may be used synonymously with and in a similar way to human self-reflection. It is used greatly as a spiritual examination.
Introspection is like the activity described by Plato when he asked, "…why should we not calmly and patiently review our own thoughts, and thoroughly examine and see what these appearances in us really are?"
Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, student of Socrates, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. In the famous words of A.N. Whitehead:
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. I do not mean the systematic scheme of thought which scholars have doubtfully extracted from his writings. I allude to the wealth of general ideas scattered through them.
Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-six dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.
Plato's dialogues have been used to teach a range of subjects, including philosophy, logic, ethics, rhetoric, and mathematics.
Fairness is treating people justly, not letting personal feelings bias decisions about others, and giving everyone a fair chance. It is the bedrock of any system of justice. It is the product of moral judgment – the process by which people determine what is morally right, what is morally wrong, and what is morally proscribed. Along with the commitment to fairness in social relations, there is a highly tuned skill in the abstract logic of equitable arrangements - determining what is fair no matter whom or what is involved. Fairness includes two types of reasoning: “justice reasoning,” which emphasizes logic, and “care reasoning,” which includes empathy, care, and the ability and willingness to take the perspective of others.
“The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away.”
- Pablo Picasso
Don't sell yourself short, maximise your presence in life by making use of your top strengths. But first, you need to know what they are. To take the only free scientifically backed personality test available today visit www.revisedperception.com/
David Luddy
Revised Perception
O-RY-N THE REBEL IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED FRONT COMPANY AND THE ARTISTJUMPOFF.COM O-RY-N was born in Newark New Jersey widely known as the brick city. His unique mono-tone and sharp delivery take the listener through tales of Jersey, the war in Iraq, a life of crime and punishment. O-RY-N brings the duality of being a Sunni-American Muslim and an American warrior invading a Muslim country. Mahmood his given name means praised and Abdul-Ghafur means servant of the forgiver. His ability to bring issues like religion philosophy and grimy street topics together in a song and make is mesh together harmoniously is uncanny. O-ry-N and his united front company has worked with artist such as BAY HOLLA, V TECH, TWEEZY, BEACON,YUNG PYRO,DEEP REASONING, BLACK DIAMOND, EDIGU, STEVE MARCHENA, LIL ZEF, GCLEF, JESTER X, EFC, DON DAPP, WID, DGP, JIVE CUTTA, JOSH OLIVER, NICK POST, BRIAN DUCHANE, DELANEY, YOUNG TOOBS, NATE CLARKE, CHE BROADWAY, EDUCATED AVOCATES, CHRIS AUTHOR, PEARL CITY, BIG LOU,GRAND MASTER CAZ, ED OG, MASTA ACE, THE DUB STATION BAND, DA UNKNOWN POET, FREEWAY, GRAND DADDY I.U., ABYSS THE MC, A.B.Y.S.S., YNOT, P SUSHI, BAY HOLLA, CHEEZ BANKROLL, CRIMSON RED, CHANCE, CRIMSON BILE, JIMMY HENDRINX, DANI DRAGON, CLOUD FACTORY, NICOLE DI AMICO, PRETTY POISON, A.M.B, D.J. ILL WILL, the list goes on.
Know The Strategy! - CLICK HERE: → howtogetbacktomyex.com/exguide
In this video, we'll talk about how you can reconstruct the attraction with your ex so that later you can recover your love, and resume the relationship.
Forget words, logic and reasoning - take advantage of your emotions.
This is the only way to make your ex feel love back to you. People are not driven by supplication, begging, and apology. Your ex will see this as that you are very weak, and that in a person is NOT very attractive.
A human being is a man or woman who is attracted to another human being who demonstrates security. So work on yourself, take some time for yourself away from your ex, and then let it remind you.
To rebuild attraction with your ex, ignore your ex.
Your ex needs some time to let go of any negative feelings he may have toward you. He has to miss you. Go on with your own life, focus on your personal things for a while - ignore your ex.
30 days is a great time, you should ignore your ex and let you miss, that you miss. This is the only sure way to boost your emotions and it's the emotions that will make you want to.
Show her that you like other people to rebuild attraction with your ex - use covert jealousy.
Let other people flirt with you, and if you can do it on Facebook, even better. But cover up about it - you see it, do not call your ex to tell it, since you're only going to show desperation.
Remind him of the good moments that he shared. Send a text.
If you can remind them of the good times they shared together, you will again touch their emotions and are more likely to contact you. Send this text 'hello I wanted to ask you what was the name of the restaurant where we had our second date? I want to take someone there, and I remember how great it was. ' This will make your memory work over time and yes, yes and yes, he or she will miss you.
You must know, that you will probably need more time than you, to process and work on your emotions. People are different. Pursuing and suffocating with attention will only make it farther away.
KNOW MORE !! - CLICK HERE: → howtogetbacktomyex.com/exguide
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some of the wealth of evidence can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimantary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow.
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evotuionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle, the Principle of Original Horizontality and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion of sedimentary deposits in perfectly, still water. Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Sandown, Isle of Wight. Formed 18/01/2018, This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
realtors have many standard tools they use to manipulate buyers. Most of what they say is half-truth or outright bullshit designed to create a false urgency in buyers to facilitate sales commissions. One of the more common lines of faulty reasoning is that buyers should worry about being priced... at Surging mortgage rates may scare sellers into action
Visit the OC Housing News, and read the OC Housing News blog. Learn why you should use a home guide. Meet the Akason Realty Consulting home guides and housing market analysts, and read our real estate agent testimonials. Discover why you should register with the OC Housing News and how to use the OC Housing News. Utilize the advanced property search, or the MLS map search.
See our special real estate offers: property search guide, housing market reports, home ownership cost guide, guide to rent or own decision, home financing guide, foreclosure 101, short sale guide, how to sell your home without a realtor, The Great Housing Bubble free PDF, 1.5% rebate on new home construction, no cost home sale program, and maximum impact real estate marketing.
Also read Renter News, SD Housing News, Housing Bubble News & Information, Housing Market Forecast US, Housing Market News & Information, Real Estate Ruin, USA Housing News, California Real Estate News, Housing Market News, USA Foreclosure News, Mortgage and Foreclosure News, Mortgage Refinance News, Real Estate Loan News, Debt Default News, Ponzi Debt, Loan Modification and Default News, Mortgage News Clips, and Fay Mortgage News.
The use of handaxes as “Pole-Axes” and their relationship to twisted Ovate/ Cordate bifaces
Handaxes could well have been used much as pole-axes have been used in recent years in abattoirs (*see below). Pole-axes were used up until the middle of the last century and as we will see were almost certainly correctly outlawed due to animal welfare reasons.
The reasoning behind the argument that Handaxes were used for a similar purpose is based on the assumption that a hunter in the Palaeolithic period or within any primitive culture, would wish to fell a trapped or wounded animal as quickly as possible, for safety reasons alone if nothing else. A pole-axe type implement would achieve this. A poor creature on the receiving end of a pole-axe, drops dead as if shot. A large and robust animal could be very dangerous if wounded and may have put up quite a fight. Contact with animals during hunting in Palaeolithic times would have presumably been at close quarters due to the lack of the bow and arrow, which was not invented at this stage.
Handaxes have a shape that could well have been compatible for use as a pole-axe having a streamlined, flat profile much like a modern axe head but with a rounded or pointed end. The effort involved in finding appropriate material and producing a handaxe would only have been warranted if a very specialist tool was required for a specific purpose, such as a pole-axe.
Considering this theory we would be wise to look at the varied forms of Handaxe to see if they help to support this idea. One example of very a specific form of Handaxe is the Ovate and Cordate twisted Handaxes of the middle-late Acheulean period.
Twisted Ovate and Cordate Handaxes have a very particular pattern. They often have a symmetrical and rounded butt and a twisted shape if viewed from the side. This is usually in the form of a backward S or question mark (?) shape.
Let us assume that in order to use these objects like a Pole-axe they would need to be hafted much like a hatchet. The handaxe itself been gripped between a jaw arrangement.
With Pole-axes in abattoirs a second attempt was sometimes required to complete the task (not a particularly pleasant thought and presumably why they were outlawed). For Palaeolithic man using a hafted Handaxe such an attempt would have been very awkward and dangerous. If, however in the case of our twisted Handaxe the haft of the implement is twisted a quarter turn in a clockwise direction (the axe head being the pivot and the haft acting like the second hand of a clock) the axe head would tend to move downwards twisting as it went. This would be possible in the same way as a coin twisted between a clenched finger and thumb will tend to ride out of our grip if held tightly at the edge. The semicircular base of our Handaxe would move against the underside of the skull, the curved shape taking it deeper. This together with the action of the twist itself would presumably stun the animal immediately.
In addition to the semicircular curve these twisted axes have a Propeller shape (a reverse “S” appearance) which is more pronounced at the butt end. This would have further aided the twisting action but in a clockwise direction only. This shape would have allowed the axe to start twisting downwards at a shallower depth than would have been possible without the propeller shape.
The blade end of the axe head sometimes has an opposite twist. This would give a maximum cutting action in the same way as a wood drill bit. In some cases this opposite twist could have allowed a shallowly embedded implement to be twisted out in an anticlockwise direction.
Interestingly this is the same action of a modern screw thread. Clockwise being to “screw-in” and anticlockwise to “un-do”. Presumably in stress of the hunt it would have been important to standardise which way to twist!
Presumably the surface area of the Ovate or Cordate handaxe would be preferable over the pointed handaxe. But it has been suggested materials may have not have always allowed for the production of the more complex Ovate and Cordate tool. (see reference to White.M.J).
Practical research would be needed (Not using live animals obviously) to verify some of the more practical aspects of the above.
*Pole-Axe: butchers implement for slaughtering cattle (Oxford Senior Dictionary)
Rapid strata formation in soft sand (field evidence).
Photo of strata formation in soft sand on a beach, created by tidal action of the sea.
Formed in a single, high tidal event. Stunning evidence which displays multiple strata/layers.
Why this is so important ....
It has long been assumed, ever since the 17th century, that layers/strata observed in sedimentary rocks were built up gradually, layer upon layer, over many years. It certainly seemed logical at the time, from just looking at rocks, that lower layers would always be older than the layers above them, i.e. that lower layers were always laid down first followed, in time, by successive layers on top.
This was assumed to be true and became known as the superposition principle.
It was also assumed that a layer comprising a different material from a previous layer, represented a change in environmental conditions/factors.
These changes in composition of layers or strata were considered to represent different, geological eras on a global scale, spanning millions of years. This formed the basis for the Geologic Column, which is used to date rocks and also fossils. The evolutionary, 'fossil record' was based on the vast ages and assumed geological eras of the Geologic Column.
There was also circular reasoning applied with the assumed age of 'index' fossils (based on evolutionary beliefs & preconceptions) used to date strata in the Geologic Column. Dating strata from the assumed age of (index) fossils is known as Biostratigraphy.
We now know that, although these assumptions seemed logical, they are not supported by the evidence.
At the time, the mechanics of stratification were not properly known or studied.
An additional factor was that this assumed superposition and uniformitarian model became essential, with the wide acceptance of Darwinism, for the long ages required for progressive microbes-to-human evolution. There was no incentive to question or challenge the superposition, uniformitarian model, because the presumed, fossil 'record' had become dependant on it, and any change in the accepted model would present devastating implications for Darwinism.
This had the unfortunate effect of linking the study of geology so closely to Darwinism, that any study independent of Darwinian considerations was effectively stymied. This link of geology with Darwinian preconceptions is known as biostratigraphy.
Some other field evidence, in various situations, can be observed here: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
and also in the links to stunning, experimental evidence, carried out by sedimentologists, given later.
_______________________________________________
GEOLOGIC PRINCIPLES (established by Nicholas Steno in the 17th Century):
What Nicolas Steno believed about strata formation is the basis of the principle of Superposition and the principle of Original Horizontality.
dictionary.sensagent.com/Law_of_superposition/en-en/
“Assuming that all rocks and minerals had once been fluid, Nicolas Steno reasoned that rock strata were formed when particles in a fluid such as water fell to the bottom. This process would leave horizontal layers. Thus Steno's principle of original horizontality states that rock layers form in the horizontal position, and any deviations from this horizontal position are due to the rocks being disturbed later.”)
BEDDING PLANES.
'Bedding plane' describes the surface in between each stratum which are formed during sediment deposition.
science.jrank.org/pages/6533/Strata.html
“Strata form during sediment deposition, that is, the laying down of sediment. Meanwhile, if a change in current speed or sediment grain size occurs or perhaps the sediment supply is cut off, a bedding plane forms. Bedding planes are surfaces that separate one stratum from another. Bedding planes can also form when the upper part of a sediment layer is eroded away before the next episode of deposition. Strata separated by a bedding plane may have different grain sizes, grain compositions, or colours. Sometimes these other traits are better indicators of stratification as bedding planes may be very subtle.”
______________________________________________
Several catastrophic events, flash floods, volcanic eruptions etc. have forced Darwinian, influenced geologists to admit to rapid stratification in some instances. However they claim it is a rare phenomenon, which they have known about for many years, and which does nothing to invalidate the Geologic Column, the fossil record, evolutionary timescale, or any of the old assumptions regarding strata formation, sedimentation and the superposition principle. They fail to face up to the fact that rapid stratification is not an extraordinary phenonemon, but rather the prevailing and normal mechanism of sedimentary deposition whenever and wherever there is moving, sediment-laden water. The experimental evidence demonstrates the mechanism and a mass of field evidence in normal (non-catastrophic) conditions shows it is a normal everyday occurrence.
It is clear from the experimental evidence that the usual process of stratification is - that strata are not formed by horizontal layers being laid on top of each other in succession, as was assumed. But by sediment being sorted in the flowing water and laid down diagonally in the direction of flow. See diagram:
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/39821536092/in/dat...
The field evidence (in the image) presented here - of rapid, simultaneous stratification refutes the Superposition Principle and the Principle of Lateral Continuity.
We now know, the Superposition Principle only applies on a rare occasion where sedimentary deposits are laid down in still water.
Superposition is required for the long evolutionary timescale, but the evidence shows it is not the general rule, as was once believed. Most sediment is laid down in moving water, where particle segregation is the general rule, resulting in the simultaneous deposition of strata/layers as shown in the photo.
See many other examples of rapid stratification (with geological features): www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Rapid, simultaneous formation of layers/strata, through particle segregation in moving water, is so easily created it has even been described by sedimentologists (working on flume experiments) as a law ...
"Upon filling the tank with water and pouring in sediments, we immediately saw what was to become the rule: The sediments sorted themselves out in very clear layers. This became so common that by the end of two weeks, we jokingly referred to Andrew's law as "It's difficult not to make layers," and Clark's law as "It's easy to make layers." Later on, I proposed the "law" that liquefaction destroys layers, as much to my surprise as that was." Ian Juby, www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/
The example in the photo is the result of normal, everyday tidal action formed in a single incident. Where the water current or movement is more turbulent, violent, or catastrophic, great depths (many metres) of stratified sediment can be laid down in a short time. Certainly not the many millions of years assumed by evolutionists.
The composition of strata formed in any deposition event. is related to whatever materials are in the sediment mix, not to any particular timescale. Whatever is in the mix will be automatically sorted into strata/layers. It could be sand, or other material added from mud slides, erosion of chalk deposits, coastal erosion, volcanic ash etc. Any organic material (potential fossils), alive or dead, engulfed by, or swept into, a turbulent sediment mix, will also be sorted and buried within the rapidly, forming layers.
See many other examples of rapid stratification with geological features: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Stratified, soft sand deposit. demonstrates the rapid, stratification principle.
Important, field evidence which supports the work of the eminent, sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault MIAS - Member of the International Association of Sedimentologists.
(Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/)
And also the experimental work of Dr M.E. Clark (Professor Emeritus, U of Illinois @ Urbana), Andrew Rodenbeck and Dr. Henry Voss, (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/)
Location: Yaverland, Isle of Wight. Photographed 30/01/2019 This field evidence demonstrates that multiple strata in sedimentary deposits do not need millions of years to form and can be formed rapidly. This natural example confirms the principle demonstrated by the sedimentation experiments carried out by Dr Guy Berthault and other sedimentologists. It calls into question the standard, multi-million year dating of sedimentary rocks, and the dating of fossils by depth of burial or position in the strata.
Mulltiple strata/layers are evident in this example.
Dr Berthault's experiments (www.sedimentology.fr/) and other experiments (www.ianjuby.org/sedimentation/) and field studies of floods and volcanic action show that, rather than being formed by gradual, slow deposition of sucessive layers superimposed upon previous layers, with the strata or layers representing a particular timescale, particle segregation in moving water or airborne particles can form strata or layers very quickly, frequently, in a single event.
And, most importantly, lower strata are not older than upper strata, they are the same age, having been created in the same sedimentary episode.
Such field studies confirm experiments which have shown that there is no longer any reason to conclude that strata/layers in sedimentary rocks relate to different geological eras and/or a multi-million year timescale. www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8&feature=share&.... they also show that the relative position of fossils in rocks is not indicative of an order of evolutionary succession. Obviously, the uniformitarian principle, on which the geologic column is based, can no longer be considered valid. And the multi-million, year dating of sedimentary rocks and fossils needs to be reassessed. Rapid deposition of stratified sediments also explains the enigma of polystrate fossils, i.e. large fossils that intersect several strata. In some cases, tree trunk fossils are found which intersect the strata of sedimentary rock up to forty feet in depth. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Lycopsi... They must have been buried in stratified sediment in a short time (certainly not millions, thousands, or even hundreds of years), or they would have rotted away. youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ
In fact, the vast majority of fossils are found in good, intact condition, which is testament to their rapid burial. You don't get good fossils from gradual burial, because they would be damaged or destroyed by decay, predation or erosion. The existence of so many fossils in sedimentary rock on a global scale is stunning evidence for the rapid depostion of sedimentary rock as the general rule. It is obvious that all rock containing good intact fossils was formed from sediment laid down in a very short time, not millions, or even thousands of years.
See set of photos of other examples of rapid stratification: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Carbon dating of coal should not be possible if it is millions of years old, yet significant amounts of Carbon 14 have been detected in coal and other fossil material, which indicates that it is less than 50,000 years old. www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html
www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Evolutionists confidently cite multi-million year ages for rocks and fossils, but what most people don't realise is that no one actually knows the age of sedimentary rocks or the fossils found within them. So how are evolutionists so sure of the ages they so confidently quote? The astonishing thing is they aren't. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric methods*, and fossils can only be dated to less than 50,000 years with Carbon 14 dating. The method evolutionists use is based entirely on assumptions. Unbelievably, fossils are dated by the assumed age of rocks, and rocks are dated by the assumed age of fossils, that's right ... it is known as circular reasoning.
* Regarding the radiometric dating of igneous rocks, which is claimed to be relevant to the dating of sedimentary rocks, in an occasional instance there is an igneous intrusion associated with a sedimentary deposit -
Prof. Aubouin says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."
"Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.
Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm
Rapid strata formation and rapid erosion at Mount St Helens.
slideplayer.com/slide/5703217/18/images/28/Rapid+Strata+F...
Visit the fossil museum:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...
The neo-Darwinian idea that the human genome consists entirely of an accumulation of billions of mutations is, quite obviously, completely bonkers. Nevertheless, it is compulsorily taught in schools and universities as 'science'.
Launch of the new Center for Human-Applied Reasoning and the Internet of Things, or CHARIOT. CHARIOT is a joint Center between USC Rossier and Viterbi to combine cutting-edge cognitive science and education research with emerging Internet of Things (IoT) technologies to revolutionize personalized education.
Photos/Margaret Malloy
for going on believing as we already do :-) James Harvey Robinson
HSS!!
dwarf Japanese flowering apricot, j c raulston arboretum, ncsu, Raleigh, north carolina
"I do not even dreamed." Author: Miyabe Miyuki
Autumn night. Murder in the meeting to hear the insects in the garden of downtown. Was killed, was a cousin of Kudo's my classmate. Apparently there was a relationship with the girl prostitution organization in the victim. Irresponsible rumor is not cut off a trace, Kudo's also tend to sink. For her favorite, I embarked on a fact-finding and Shimazaki best friend. Whereabouts of the reasoning of middle school duo?.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasoning, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God with the likeness of an image of mortal human beings and birds and quadrupeds and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to immorality, that their bodies would be dishonored among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God with a lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for eternity. Amen."
Second in our sermon series:
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Portraits of Kings
It may look different today, you won't see someone offering a goat on an altar in their front yard to the gods of industry and business, but we will definitely sacrifice our kids, our families, our free time, our identities, for our pursuit and worship of money, power and prestige and all the things we think they will give us, comfort, security, a better identity...
"I have a code that I live by."
I have a code that I live by. [1] It's the result of observation, listening and making mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, so I make a mental note and move on. Unexplained, my rules might appear obscure, stupid even. The stories and reasoning behind them aren't.
#6 Got COM?
I hadn't seen Bill for years. I ran into him again coming up the ramp of a train station one morning. We organised to have a drink after work at a Pub in the city. Ordered a few drinks and got to talking work until it was time to leave. Then he asked,
"Got COM?", "Got COM?,"
then more insistantly,
HAVE YOU "Got COM?"
I looked at him thinking, "Starship Troopers?" [2] He smiled and explained it this way. It doesn't matter where you are, always have your Coms ready. It had been drilled into Bill to always be contactable, be it in the field at work or the Pub.
#7 The 7P's
The polite version is straight out of IBM corporate America. I heard Greg use this when I was doing post-grad studies in the early 90's. But I'd heard a better, distinctly local version years prior in Kilcunda.
Kilcunda is old coal mining country. I was with a group mapping significant land marks. More inches of rain fell than the two days we'd been there, but I wasn't worried. I'd packed my rain gear.
Coming back after a long cold day in the rain and mud, Andy looked at me spit polishing my GP's. Took another looked at the lace-up and said, "that's not how you do it." "Don't cross the laces, zip one up the middle to the top. Then lace the other left and right to the top." I proceeded to unlace, then re-lace my left boot. "That way if you trip, sprain or break an ankle it only takes one cut up the middle."
Mate, it's all about the 7P's...
Prior Preparation Planning Prevents
PISS-POOR Performance
Laughing, I continued re-lacing my other boot. The 7P's. [3]
#18 CVS2BVS
When you're in the knee deep in shite, CVS2BVS is your best friend. That's what Ian reckons. [4] I'd been sent off to a course on psychology and thinking, SOT. One of the gems, Ian came out with was
Current View of Situation 2 Best View of Situation
Ian made us repeat this, CVS2BVS, CVS2BVS, CVS2BVS to drum it in. How does it work? If you visualise not just where you are at the present but where you need to be, you are free to concentrate on the path.
Reference
[1] seldomlogical, "Rules and resolutions",
[Accessed Wednesday 17th, July 2012]
seldomlogical.com/2012/03/24/rules-and-resolutions
[2] In Starship Troopers - A 1997 film directed by Paul Verhoeven based on the book of the same name by Robert A. Heinlein - you can hear the lead scream, "got Com?" just as the bugs over-run the FOB.
[Accessed Wednesday 17th, July 2012]
www.subzin.com/quotes/Starship+Troopers/Mayday
[3] You can see the lace-up I describe: www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/247175242/in/set-721576269... and more clearly here: www.flickr.com/photos/bootload/4411846915/in/set-72157626...
[4] wikipedia, Michael Hewitt-Gleeson, "PhD Lateral Thinking 1980 and SOT. Ian credits SOT with his training as a PO and service in 1st AFT, Vietnam."
[Accessed Wednesday 17th, July 2012]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hewitt-Gleeson
A port hole on the Rapaki, a steam crane docked in Auckland Voyager Maratime Museum.
Next >>>
The "Party Over, Must Go Home" light in the corner of my eye had been flashing for about six minutes when I caved to the inevitable and Barbara and I went to collect our things and leave.
But we couldn't, because the most amazing music started coming out of an adjoining room. A bunch of musicians attend the Conference every year and these sort of impromptu performances tend to happen.
It was the sweet, intense voice of Lillian Boute, singing "Basin Street Blues" in a way that just dragged your heart sideways, that drew us in Then she left Henry Butler playing solo, running through songs that were genuinely familiar and music that I'd never heard before, but which seemed like something that I had really enjoyed in a past life.
The session closed out with an eight-minute flight of "Blackbird." Dangit, but I can't remember the name of the gent playing the sax.
All in all, this whole scene reminded me why I stopped taking piano lessons after four or five years. At that point, you can't simply read the music and push the keys. To advance further, you need to truly understand the message that those lines and dots and squiggles are telling you, and no matter how long I practiced or how hard I willed this to happen, I always wound up obediently translating notes into keypresses and no more.
Still, I can listen pretty good.
Many of my favorite Conference On World Affairs memories are musical. I was at the final-night party one year, mingling with about 200 people, and as often happens I found myself desperate to not talk to people and desperate not to have anybody talking to me, either.
I located the one empty room in the very big house. It was a small conservatory where the hired band had set up. But they were on a dinner break, so there was no reason for anyone to be in there.
I sank into an armchair and exploited Reason #41 why it pays to wear a hat: I lowered the front of the brim over my eyes and rested the back of my head on the chair. The OFF DUTY sign was clearly lit.
I was slightly annoyed when I heard footsteps approach. It was Dave Grusin, leading a college girl into the room. She was making noises that were clearly of the "I'm thrilled that Dave (freaking) Grusin is pulling me into the conservatory, but good form dictates that I pretend otherwise" variety. She was studying voice and Dave had put her next to the piano and taken the driver's seat, playing the opening bars to "Autumn Leaves."
She sang well. But the smile on my face under that hat came from a top, creative musician taking a sturdy old tune out for an ambitious drive. He played the melody. He played around the melody and over and under it, then chased after a shiny object off behind the treeline but came back with the melody in his mouth, and found a new way to play with it.
I was sitting back and drinking all of this in, minute after luscious minute. I didn't lift my head up until I heard eager clattering and footfalls: it was the hired band, plated of food still in their hands. They heard Dave (freaking) Grusin playing and dammit...no free catered buffet plate can compete with an opportunity to jam with one such as he.
The music went on and on and the room filled up. And the music that happened with the band and the other people was wonderful stuff. But if I wind up with the sort of death that gives me the chance to think about some stuff before the final curtain comes, one of the items on my playlist of memories will be those five minutes alone in that room with Dave Grusin's music.
Generated with Gemini's Nano Banana Pro, Dec 30, 2025. I love the Reasoning for this one:
Analyzing the Request
I'm currently breaking down the user's intent. The central themes are serenity, remoteness, and a sense of completion. I'm focusing on defining those concepts precisely so I can proceed. I want to convey an image that makes the user feel at peace, even far away.
Formulating a Scene
I am now visualizing the scene. My current approach involves a remote, tranquil cabin by a lake bathed in warm afternoon light. A person rests, seemingly at peace, nearby. I'm aiming for a natural, candid feel in the composition. I need to figure out how to add a golden retriever.
Verifying the Visuals
I'm now cross-referencing the initial request with the details in the scene. The goal is to accurately represent a relaxed individual in a remote, peaceful environment. Details like the book and surroundings are important to capture the desired mood.
Analyzing Scene Accuracy
I've examined the visual elements in relation to the original prompt, focusing on how they convey a sense of peaceful remoteness. The setting and the individual's pose are critical in establishing the intended atmosphere. I'm checking to ensure the details consistently reflect the concepts the user described.
via
Pelvic floor exercise routines are often very diverse in information regarding the styles and methods you should pursue when seeking to build pelvic floor strength. Some exercise experts will advise pelvic floor muscle training and engagement that actively contracts both your core and your pelvic floor. Their reasoning may seem valid, as we commonly agree that engaging certain muscle groups can help strengthen them, as they contract and release. However, I believe that there is a lot to be desired with this method of exercising the pelvic floor.
In my programs, I always teach my clients how to properly train their pelvic floors to lift and release appropriately depending on the task and load.
When you contract your muscles, you either make them longer (think slow release of a bicep curl) or you make them shorter (as with a bicep curl). In each case, these muscles are contracting in order to gain strength. In pelvic floor exercises, such as kegel exercises, you are contracting (making them shorter) and tightening the pelvic floor muscles.
However, what many people may not realize is that with pelvic floor issues like pelvic floor dysfunction or pelvic organ prolapse, these muscle groups may already be too short, overly toned, and too strong. If this is the case, doing kegel exercises may only increase various symptoms you are already facing.
In order to properly strengthen the pelvic floor we need to train the pelvic floor to be responsive to load and movement. To contract as needed and to be able to release as needed. Simply blanket statements of “contract and shorten” all the time is a very one dimensional model.
How to Strengthen the Pelvic Floor
Many of my clients have come to me with the same issues mentioned above – overly short contracted pelvic floor that make engagement nearly impossible for them. Your pelvic floor helps support the entire pelvic system and much of your body’s weight – that is a ton of load! If your pelvic floor is too short, it makes movement, engagement, and pressure harder to handle. What we want to do is teach the client how to properly train their pelvic floor to handle their movements and respond appropriately to their actions, exercises, and movements. Kegel exercises which continue to shorten your pelvic floor are incapable of doing this. So, how do we do this correctly?
Are you looking for safe and restorative exercises to heal from pelvic floor symptoms?
Learn more about the RYC program
Learn More
Are you looking for safe and restorative exercises to heal from pelvic floor symptoms?
Learn more about the RYC program
Learn More
How to Do Pelvic Floor Exercises Correctly
The first step to improving the way we approach pelvic floor exercises is pelvic alignment. The position of our pelvis greatly affects the tone and strength of our pelvic floor. First, we must ensure that the client is not tucking their pelvis under all the time. If this is the case, the pelvic floor is too tight and will be harder to engage. Muscles cannot go through their full range when they are limited based on posture.
The second step is resolving any chronic tension, holding, and hypertonic patterns if there are any present. In this case, it may be helpful for the client to discuss internal exercises with a women’s health physical therapist. In my program, I would be teaching women and men how to properly re-pattern their movements. In some cases this involves kegel-like exercises, but do not focus primarily on squeezing and tightening the pelvic floor.
The next step would be pursuing neutral pelvic arrangement exercises.
Exercises to Re-Align the Pelvis:
Simply put, we don’t always need to squeeze or tighten the pelvic floor in order to resolve pelvic floor dysfunction or other additional pelvic floor issues. A responsive pelvic floor will lift up with proper core engagement when the pelvis is properly aligned and there is no chronic holding, tight, tension or hypertonic pattern. The passive lifting of the pelvic floor as a result of proper core recruitment is a much better way to train the pelvic floor. Not only that, but just squeezing the pelvic floor only gets to the more superficial fibers and not to the deeper layers of the muscles.
Also, during the day as you move, with a functional pelvic floor – your muscles would lift to support you and the load, rather than squeeze to support you. Yes, that lift does have the same feeling as a muscle contraction but it is not the squeeze tight feeling of a traditional kegel.
5 Pelvic Floor Exercises for Women
Reflexive Breathing
I have discussed this in many of my previous blogs and articles – the importance of proper breathing mechanics. The way we breathe can greatly affect the alignment of our pelvic floor, the way we engage our abdominal muscles, and the load we place on our pelvic floor, especially during exercise.
Many people breathe into their belly when they are exercising. This can cause the belly to bulge and increase intra-abdominal pressure on our muscles and organs. Our pelvic floors are not designed to handle that kind of pressure on a regular basis. Training ourselves to utilize our rib cage when we breathe can help release this pressure and help us reorient our pelvic floors.
The pelvic floor is connected to the function of our core, so when we are looking at resolving a pelvic floor issue we are essentially talking about a core issue as well. Belly breathing is not only hard on the pelvic floor, but it can also make having a functional core very difficult.
To learn more about proper breathing mechanics, considering watching my video covering how to breathe through your ribcage.
Once you have mastered proper breathing mechanics, you can continue on into the next few exercises.
Reverse Marching
Reverse marching is a great beginner exercise that helps engage your core and promote pelvic floor health. To perform a reverse march:
Begin by laying on your back on a yoga mat or other flat surface. It may help to have a neck cushion or a support for your head. It may be helpful to imagine a dandelion in front of you and that you’re trying to blow it out. This helps you begin to work on your breathing patterns to begin the exercise.
It is important to feel a sense of reflexive tightening deep in your abdomen as your core begins coming together. Before you begin the reverse march, it is important that your pelvic bone and your hip bones are positioned in the same plane – a neutral pelvic position. Firmly place your sacrum, the bone your tailbone is connected to, into the mat, this will prevent your hips from shifting as you march. Inhale, and as you exhale and begin feeling that reflexive movement, you want to lift one leg up off the floor. Repeat this movement 5-6 times with each leg, using the opposing leg in succession.
Table Top
Once you master the reverse march, you can then transition into table top while in the same position.
As you come into table top, it is important that you refrain from bulging your stomach, but keep it controlled, contained, and reflexive. To perform a table top: lift one leg at a time into a reverse march until both legs have been lifted off the ground into a neutral position. Slowly place one foot down at a time. Remember the proper breathing method mentioned above while performing this exercise. Repeat 5 – 6 times per set.
Goddess Pose with Side-Bend & Twist
The next move is a goddess pose, which is a standing pose. You want to place your feet wide apart with your hip bones positioned under your shoulders and with your butt back behind you, keeping your weight primarily on your heels. Then you want to lift your arm up above your head and pretend that someone is trying to push you into your side bend movement. You want to feel as if you are resisting being in this position. However, you don’t want to resist with your neck or shoulders, you want to feel this resistance in your core.
Another helpful movement while in the goddess position is twisting side to side. You basically want to approach this with the same idea: slight resistance while being stable and grounded in your position. As you move side to side, you want to feel your whole core activating – your obliques.
Repeat either of the above exercises 5 times on each side and rest.
You don’t have to live in
fear, pain or discomfort
Get back the confidence + lifestyle you always loved
Start your healing journey today
You don’t have to live in
fear, pain or discomfort
Get back the confidence + lifestyle you always loved
Start your healing journey today
Lunge with Twist & Chop
This position requires an important step. While getting into a comfortable lunge, you want to find a neutral pelvis. You want to make sure that your hip bones and your pelvic bone are in the same plane. Our natural tendency is to be pulled forward, so making sure that you’re positioned upright and in a neutral pelvic position ensures correct alignment for the exercise.
Next, you want to lift your arms up with your palms together and inhale. As you exhale, you will then begin to twist and chop (bringing your arms down, together, to your side), once again creating that pretend resistance. Your twisting and chopping should be done from your chest and not from your arms alone.
Repeat 5 – 6 times on each side and rest.