Young Earth VS Old Earth and a Third point of view - the Creation Truth?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!

And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?

Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!

dude - check the OP.

I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!

ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...

Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Sure. Why not?

And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime

The evidence is all around you, the only problem is the way you see them.

BTW - why is there something instead of nothing?

Maybe it depends who you ask?

Not really. You can ask a child and you will get a simple yet amazing answer. But in the real world, it all depends on your worldview. It all depends on how you shaped your worldview or how your worldview shaped you.

So yeah: depends?
Are we all observing with our own self-created filters?

In a way and the consequence is life or death - as in which side of the coin are you in?

The side where all of "these" (our existence) is just a figment of our imaginations or are we a product of an intelligent being?

Hence my question - why is there something instead of nothing?

Have you already decided that there are two sides to this 'coin-like' existence, and that this is something?

If so: am not there with ya.

Yes. One side is reality and the other is fantasy.

One side is something the other is nothing.

Hence if our existence is from something then there's a reason for being.

otherwise, we're just an accidental product of blind chance.

We make our own path and give it a meaning.

Question - which one is the reality?

Neither.

It's all fantasy.
All a grand illusion.
A mass delusion.

No coin. No sides. No reason.

Very interesting that you have this worldview.

So, other than God showing himself to you, no evidence will suffice?

I wonder how do you define nothing and how can it produce something?

Very puzzling.

Personally wouldn't call it a 'worldview', but understand what you mean.

Even god himself jumping-out from behind a burning bush, wouldn't be considered as any kind of convincing evidence.

Nothing, is pretty much that: no thing. No thingness = nothingness.
The deepest level, below all things, concepts, ideas, senses, interpretations, and all things.
Contemplate it as a field of potentialities.
Where there is no difference between what is thought to be known, and all that is not known.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!

And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?

Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!

dude - check the OP.

I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!

ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...

Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Sure. Why not?

And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime

The evidence is all around you, the only problem is the way you see them.

BTW - why is there something instead of nothing?

Maybe it depends who you ask?

Not really. You can ask a child and you will get a simple yet amazing answer. But in the real world, it all depends on your worldview. It all depends on how you shaped your worldview or how your worldview shaped you.

So yeah: depends?
Are we all observing with our own self-created filters?

In a way and the consequence is life or death - as in which side of the coin are you in?

The side where all of "these" (our existence) is just a figment of our imaginations or are we a product of an intelligent being?

Hence my question - why is there something instead of nothing?

Have you already decided that there are two sides to this 'coin-like' existence, and that this is something?

If so: am not there with ya.

Yes. One side is reality and the other is fantasy.

One side is something the other is nothing.

Hence if our existence is from something then there's a reason for being.

otherwise, we're just an accidental product of blind chance.

We make our own path and give it a meaning.

Question - which one is the reality?

Neither.

It's all fantasy.
All a grand illusion.
A mass delusion.

No coin. No sides. No reason.

Very interesting that you have this worldview.

So, other than God showing himself to you, no evidence will suffice?

I wonder how do you define nothing and how can it produce something?

Very puzzling.

Personally wouldn't call it a 'worldview', but understand what you mean.

Even god himself jumping-out from behind a burning bush, wouldn't be considered as any kind of convincing evidence.

Nothing, is pretty much that: no thing. No thingness = nothingness.
The deepest level, below all things, concepts, ideas, senses, interpretations, and all things.
Contemplate it as a field of potentialities.
Where there is no difference between what is thought to be known, and all that is not known.

In that case - you don't exist.

This - doesn't exist:

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!

And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?

Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!

dude - check the OP.

I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!

ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...

Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Sure. Why not?

And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime

The evidence is all around you, the only problem is the way you see them.

BTW - why is there something instead of nothing?

Maybe it depends who you ask?

Not really. You can ask a child and you will get a simple yet amazing answer. But in the real world, it all depends on your worldview. It all depends on how you shaped your worldview or how your worldview shaped you.

So yeah: depends?
Are we all observing with our own self-created filters?

In a way and the consequence is life or death - as in which side of the coin are you in?

The side where all of "these" (our existence) is just a figment of our imaginations or are we a product of an intelligent being?

Hence my question - why is there something instead of nothing?

Have you already decided that there are two sides to this 'coin-like' existence, and that this is something?

If so: am not there with ya.

Yes. One side is reality and the other is fantasy.

One side is something the other is nothing.

Hence if our existence is from something then there's a reason for being.

otherwise, we're just an accidental product of blind chance.

We make our own path and give it a meaning.

Question - which one is the reality?

Neither.

It's all fantasy.
All a grand illusion.
A mass delusion.

No coin. No sides. No reason.

Very interesting that you have this worldview.

So, other than God showing himself to you, no evidence will suffice?

I wonder how do you define nothing and how can it produce something?

Very puzzling.

Personally wouldn't call it a 'worldview', but understand what you mean.

Even god himself jumping-out from behind a burning bush, wouldn't be considered as any kind of convincing evidence.

Nothing, is pretty much that: no thing. No thingness = nothingness.
The deepest level, below all things, concepts, ideas, senses, interpretations, and all things.
Contemplate it as a field of potentialities.
Where there is no difference between what is thought to be known, and all that is not known.

In that case - you don't exist.

This - doesn't exist:

Correct.

Without being sure exactly what you mean by 'this': the second statement is also correct, whatever you meant.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Jay-morris
It is frustrating, and annoying that people actually believe this BS! And even if the bible is true, and is the word of God (Obviously is not) I would not be jumping around with pure happiness! I would be gutted, absolutly gutted!

Why? Because I would know that God is a scoipathic, ego driven maniac, who is not bothered about killing millions of innocent people (his children)

But it's all BS anyway, but people will always believe in fairytales, or nightmares!

And I thought you have something to contribute to the conversation.

Just wondering though, based on current calculations, how old do you think the earth is?

Why?

Around 4.54 billion years old. Why? Because science points to that. Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Please point to the evidence of that? I do not mean belief, I mean evidence!

dude - check the OP.

I did read it. The bible is absolute no sense written not by the word of God, but by primitive human beings, hence the reason it is rediculas!

ok - so let's be clear then, based on current findings, the earth is around 4.5 BYO. We agree on that.

as to this...

Or do you think an all powerful being decided to make the earth and all living things.

Sure. Why not?

And where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? That's right, absolutly nothing, apart from belief!

Religon is a powerful thing, and sadly, something that will not go away in my lifetime

The evidence is all around you, the only problem is the way you see them.

BTW - why is there something instead of nothing?

Maybe it depends who you ask?

Not really. You can ask a child and you will get a simple yet amazing answer. But in the real world, it all depends on your worldview. It all depends on how you shaped your worldview or how your worldview shaped you.

So yeah: depends?
Are we all observing with our own self-created filters?

In a way and the consequence is life or death - as in which side of the coin are you in?

The side where all of "these" (our existence) is just a figment of our imaginations or are we a product of an intelligent being?

Hence my question - why is there something instead of nothing?

Have you already decided that there are two sides to this 'coin-like' existence, and that this is something?

If so: am not there with ya.

Yes. One side is reality and the other is fantasy.

One side is something the other is nothing.

Hence if our existence is from something then there's a reason for being.

otherwise, we're just an accidental product of blind chance.

We make our own path and give it a meaning.

Question - which one is the reality?

the reality is that any school of thought which relies on fear for motivation is probably not a nice club.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

the reality is that any school of thought which relies on fear for motivation is probably not a nice club.

So like parenting and discipline?

Even school and work rely on the fear of failure or the fear of not having substantial income. Fear is good if you fear the Right thing.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry, you're wrong. I understand you're a slow learner, but you might spend some time reading the links I posted as well as the mathematical derivation of the half life equation.

From the link you posted:

"The initial concentration Nk,i(0) of nuclei, which is needed for the calculations, was calculated
from the formula" your source

Therefore, you are wrong. You need the initial quantity of the sample to determine its age (t). Just admit it. It blows my mind how far you are willing to deny science to convince your self you are right.

Coop - you have a valid point there. I wonder though is this also applicable to short-lived isotopes? I mean, on fast decaying isotopes?

originally posted by: edmc^2

Coop - you have a valid point there. I wonder though is this also applicable to short-lived isotopes? I mean, on fast decaying isotopes?

Yeah it is a problem throughout radiometric dating. Even with short-lived isotopes if you don't know the initial concentration it will do you no good to determine the amount of time that elapsed. Carbon-dating is a partial exemption because we can make the assumption that atmospheric C-14 has remained constant over time, thus giving us an estimate on the initial C-14 ratios in all organisms. But due to variable C-14 intake rates for tissues and organisms, and a variable C-14 atmospheric concentration, it still requires estimation and extrapolation and is therefore not exact.

The fact we're finding organic remains and even blood cell fragments in dinosaur bones is a clear demonstration that our time tables are off. They will say to date the rocks around the samples, but that is absurd because carbon dating gives an age range of 4,000-40,000 years for all dinosaurs:

Evidence for an early date for dinosaurs

“The construction of this time scale was based on about 380 radioisotope ages that were selected because of their agreement with the presumed fossil and geological sequences found in the rocks. Radioisotope ages that did not meet these requirements were rejected on the basis of presumed chemical and/or physical modifications that made the “ages” unreliable indicators of real time. About 85% of the selections were K-Ar date s, 8% rubidium-strontium dates, and 4% uranium-lead dates.”

Bolded for emphasis to show they are picking and choosing the results that they want, and discarding results that disagree with the dogmatic timeframe. This is literally backwards science. It is a house of cards based on no concrete empirical evidence.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

the reality is that any school of thought which relies on fear for motivation is probably not a nice club.

So like parenting and discipline?

Even school and work rely on the fear of failure or the fear of not having substantial income. Fear is good if you fear the Right thing.

Isn't it sad to think that some unilluminated parents still use fear to parent their children?

Also sad to think that some folks are motivated by ..."...the fear of not having substantial income..."....
The big fella lounging around in the clouds in a bathrobe is supposed to know what's best for one anyways, so why worry, or have fear if one is a believer?

Am not a believer, but love the thought the god even feeds the birds, so imagine all that he does for you.
That might be from a bible quote, or somewhere else, but just a beautiful idea to ponder.

originally posted by: Nothin

Isn't it sad to think that some unilluminated parents still use fear to parent their children?

Also sad to think that some folks are motivated by ..."...the fear of not having substantial income..."....

Yeah it's sad. People fear such things their whole life to no benefit of their own. Someone's god is perhaps whatever they fear most, because it rules over them and dictates their lifestyle. If you fear what others think of you, they will be your gods. If you fear financial security you will bow down to the almighty dollar. If you fear the unknown then ignorance will consume you.. etc, etc.

The big fella lounging around in the clouds in a bathrobe is supposed to know what's best for one anyways, so why worry, or have fear if one is a believer? just a beautiful idea to ponder.

When i was reintroducing myself to Christian philosophy I realized no one, or at least no one who I had met, believes to the degree to follow this concept. Yet such a concept is intuitively the answer if you actually believe in what you say you believe in. The sad truth is that all "believers" beliefs are compromised due to fear of the demi-gods (money, pride, lust, public opinion, work, etc). As Paul said, no one on earth is actually a Christian. Bunch of hypocrites (my self included [but I am striving for it]). Yet if this is true, then none have yet received the Gift of God. This means there still awaits surprises for anyone who goes looking whole-heartedly.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

the reality is that any school of thought which relies on fear for motivation is probably not a nice club.

So like parenting and discipline?

Even school and work rely on the fear of failure or the fear of not having substantial income. Fear is good if you fear the Right thing.

Fear is how you motivate less intelligent creatures to respect you. Fear is what you use when you're not creative enough to inspire love and understanding.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Fear is how you motivate less intelligent creatures to respect you. Fear is what you use when you're not creative enough to inspire love and understanding.

It is no surprise that you are still mocking things you don't understand.

So what are you afraid of?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Fear is how you motivate less intelligent creatures to respect you. Fear is what you use when you're not creative enough to inspire love and understanding.

It is no surprise that you are still mocking things you don't understand.

So what are you afraid of?

Fear

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Nothin

Isn't it sad to think that some unilluminated parents still use fear to parent their children?

Also sad to think that some folks are motivated by ..."...the fear of not having substantial income..."....

Yeah it's sad. People fear such things their whole life to no benefit of their own. Someone's god is perhaps whatever they fear most, because it rules over them and dictates their lifestyle. If you fear what others think of you, they will be your gods. If you fear financial security you will bow down to the almighty dollar. If you fear the unknown then ignorance will consume you.. etc, etc.

The big fella lounging around in the clouds in a bathrobe is supposed to know what's best for one anyways, so why worry, or have fear if one is a believer? just a beautiful idea to ponder.

When i was reintroducing myself to Christian philosophy I realized no one, or at least no one who I had met, believes to the degree to follow this concept. Yet such a concept is intuitively the answer if you actually believe in what you say you believe in. The sad truth is that all "believers" beliefs are compromised due to fear of the demi-gods (money, pride, lust, public opinion, work, etc). As Paul said, no one on earth is actually a Christian. Bunch of hypocrites (my self included [but I am striving for it]). Yet if this is true, then none have yet received the Gift of God. This means there still awaits surprises for anyone who goes looking whole-heartedly.

Might we consider embracing the unknown, then perhaps embracing ignorance?

Does being a Christian, or not: seem to matter, or be a factor, in whether one gives-in to the will of the: universe/god/what is, or not?
Whether one is motivated by fear, or not?

originally posted by: Nothin

Might we consider embracing the unknown, then perhaps embracing ignorance?

Does being a Christian, or not: seem to matter, or be a factor, in whether one gives-in to the will of the: universe/god/what is, or not?
Whether one is motivated by fear, or not?

Good question

The Christ - the inner emergence of truth free from lies both spoken and emotional - could culminate in someone with no exposure to the Bible. The Bible is a tool to reaffirm this inner emergence, so one day it may be easier to take that leap of faith.

"This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life."

can we take a moment to talk about the united monarchy of israel and the implications of a theocratic dictator returning to claim his kingdom? since that is the purpose of any theoretical christ figure. it makes me think of some kind of holy invasion.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
can we take a moment to talk about the united monarchy of israel and the implications of a theocratic dictator returning to claim his kingdom? since that is the purpose of any theoretical christ figure. it makes me think of some kind of holy invasion.

Israel as a state currently waiting for a Messiah is the textbook antithesis to Christian ideology, because it implies that the truth has not already come manifest. It was expressed in the writings of Moses and the words of Jesus that the transcendental truth of God's Kingdom is not limited to a particular geographic region, but resident in each and every person who wishes to cooperate with such ideals that would benefit them most.

Also, a dictatorship is only bad if it is imperfect... you are judging from a limited human perspective and using buzz words to attempt to delineate truth.

a reply to: cooperton

That's not how revelations explains it. Lots of people being incinerated, a world subjugated before a single ruler, public execution of the enemy, etc but that's only if the united monarchy is restored. I was just asking about how people in general feel about the prophecy where a theocratic dictatorship is restored. The power belongs to the people and if we dont agree with methods, we have a duty to do damage control and improve the system.

originally posted by: cooperton

For these reasons, especially the bolded point, the samples could be drastically younger depending on the amount of initial argon 'when the clock started'. To assume there was no initial argon is silly considering there are never any pure samples found in nature.

Did you notice what I mentioned at the end of my quotations from that article? That counts for what you bolded as well:

"...but that [what you bolded now] doesn't negate or take anything away from what I bolded and therefore...

End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth or from the moon (in the example above) testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years (or 'rocks' if we're talking about the moon rock example again)."

Now the moon rock example goes into the details regarding the statement above regarding "billions of years". In your quotation you left out the crucial part that I bolded in the very next sentence:

"The potassium must be free of argon when the clock is started, that is, when the mineral is formed. And the system must remain sealed for the duration, allowing no potassium or argon to escape or enter.

How well does the clock work in practice? Sometimes very well but at other times poorly. ... But in other rocks, the potassium and uranium ages agree very closely. ...

An outstanding success of the rubidium-strontium clock was in dating the same moon rock described above. Five different minerals in the rock were tested, and they joined in indicating an age of 3.3 billion years, the same as the potassium-argon age.In some cases the comparative ages obtained by these three geological clocks are in close agreement and give confidence that the ages in such cases are very likely correct."

Have you ever heard of the saying: 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater'?

Just because some people are screwing around with dating rock layers and such (those wanting a certain age to belong to a fossil that is supposed to fit there according to evolutionary storylines influencing the results and methods to date the rocks), doesn't mean that all dating attempts of rocks are misleading or that everyone is behaving in that manner (often by means of cherry-picking dates from a wide range or scattering of dates received from radiometric analysis, in which case, we're talking about a situation that is not "under ideal conditions" as described at the end of my quotations from the article, but that doesn't negate the evidence derived from dating rocks "under ideal conditions" nor does it make those situations non-existent or the results invalid or unreliable, as if dating rocks never happens "under ideal conditions" or that one can never trust the results to be accurate or reliable).

As the article mentions:

"It should be emphasized, however, that such cases show what kind of agreement is possible​—but only under ideal conditions. And conditions are usually not ideal. Far longer lists could be given of comparisons that clash with one another."

"usually not ideal" is not the same as "always not ideal" (which is how one interprets this field of radiometric dating when one is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to deny the very real and reasonable evidence for a moon, in the article's example, and earth that is billions of years old.) That is very similar behaviour to those who "sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing [or denying, talking past, casting vagueness, uncertainty and doubt upon] the others." As I recently discussed in the thread about A. Sediba, and which is discussed in more detail regarding which facts are cherry-picked to support an agenda and which facts are left out of the discussion or conveniently ignored or denied* in the video "Walk like an ape?" and the last video about "Contested Bones". *: or cast doubt upon again, downplayed in terms of likelihood, etc.

I've more often found similar behavioural patterns in argumentation and reasoning by young earth creationists and evolutionists. In situations where this is caused because they are so often debating with one another that they end up copying eachothers behavioural patterns in argumentation and reasoning (way of talking), perhaps sort of with the feeling, 'if they do it (or get away with it, or are fine with it or their admirers are fine with it), then why can't or shouldn't I argue or reason like that* as well?'; then that reminds me of the phrase in the Bible that reminds Christians of the following:

“Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.” (1 Cor. 15:33)

*: basically selling what wants to believe with the best argumentation one can come up with, cause that's what it boils down to, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater regarding facts and evidence that one rather sees concealed or at least not discussed too much and won't acknowledge, and in a discussion quickly going back to one's initial argument (in this case related to the facts about "The potassium must be free of argon when the clock is started, that is, when the mineral is formed.") ending up as a sort of red herring or distraction from the actual facts and evidence (concerning the moon's age in the example in the article, or the parts that discuss the reliability of radiometric dating methods under certain conditions that are also applicable to the age of the earth) that shows what they want to believe or argue for is false/incorrect (young earth creationism).

I hope that footnote is still readable with all the sidenotes applying it to what just happened there when you chose to pick out that point about initial content again (which I left in my quotations for the exact reason for you to not go back to that point again, the whole point of me bolding certain parts and leaving those other parts in there unbolded was to show that the unbolded parts do not negate or take anything away from the bolded parts and additional statement at the end. It already was a response to your point about initial content of minerals). So initially I didn't feel like responding again cause you seemed to be deliberately talking past what I described as "what's important in your case specifically". Perhaps it's more subconsciously, being in the habit of really sticking on your side of the fence selling or arguing for your point of view. Unable to correctly process a response to the points you bring up and then responding to that rather than going back one step (or repeating it) in the logical pathway of a reasonable discussion about the subject (as if nothing happened), just like the fans of evolutionary philosophies regularly posting on this subforum (if you can get past all the ad hominems and lame comments with suggestions on how to go about refuting evolutionary ideas or articles about those, or comments about supposedly not understanding evolution or any relevant subject well enough to contribute to the discussion).