PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     *Hey im new here I HAVE A Q*~
       hey i have a question on creationism..

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ:  As I've said, what you have presented isn't evidence, it is stories of what you think happened.  There is no evidence to back it up, and quite a bit to the contrary.

I have presented the same kind of evidence you have provided (and to the same degree as you have provided) - quotes from, and links to people who know better than we what they are talking about.  Because neither of us actually does (nor does anyone) study each and every avenue of science to make our own obervations, we have to try to convey the idea of those who do here, then link to our sources.  I think I have done a fair job of showing my sources, using reason and common sense.  I have conveyed the point that though it is not accepted, creation and the Bible are both possible and plausible.  

TQ: And for a good example of this, lets look at your response to my intelligence/invention question:

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

You asked a rediculous question, and I responded in kind (why didn't moses use GPS?   Responded with 'necesity is the mother of all invention').  If you want an intelligent answer, next time ask an intelligent quesiton.  If you want to keep asking idiotic questions, expect equally as deep responses.  Remember - I have to try to 'communicate on your level' for you to understand the answer.

TQ: So, results are cross checked, and there indications which are factored in to correct the "assumptions".  Also, this is the "simple" method.  Farther down the page (obviously you never read it):

Actually I did read the page.  The point is that you guys swore up and down that 'NO ASSUMPTIONS HAD TO BE MADE' when clearly there are assumptions that have to be made.  You can try to shift the issue... try to claim these assumptions are reliable all you want - it does not mean that there are no assumptions.  It just means that the 'guesses' are 'educated guesses'.  

You and Demon stressed very clearly that NO ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE in radiometic dating.  Obviously, this claim has been thoroughly refuted.  Yet you guys won't be honest, and admit that it is the case.  

Here is the trend in evolution - make an assumption, back that assumption up with an educated guess.  Do some real science and base the interpretation of that hard data on the framework of the educated guess that was based on the assumption.  Then proclaim that the assumption (and therefore the educated guess) were correct because the hardcore data seems to 'fit'.  The evidence doesn't directly prove or disprove, it merely fits with your educated guesses (aka assumptions).  Radiometric dating just happens to be a good example.

Explained 200 years ago, and I and Demon both explained it to you

You seem to have a lot of 'explainations' why all this evidence doesn't really exist.  But wait - does this evidence not exist like the assumptions for radiometric dating dont' exist?  Does this evidence not exist like reptiles don't keep growing all their lives?  

TQ: Wrong, and please tell me how this is explained by the flood?

Did you read the Jellyfish fossil link I gave you?  It has answers to this, and any question about soft tissues.   Jellyfish Link

Here is a snippett:

A better alternative: smothered in the Flood!
The evidence makes much more sense from a biblical Flood perspective:

The preservation of the sand ripples is easily explained.  Being at depth rather than in a tidal zone, waves did not erode the sand ripples.  Also, ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment—in this case, the ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.

Such a starkly different type of sediment is much more likely to have been carried and deposited by swirling floodwaters than by a returning tide in a beach environment.

The multiple layers of ripples (and the variation in their alignment/orientation between layers) reflect their having been laid down by sediment-laden currents of varying strength (thus the variation in particle sizes between layers).

This is much easier to imagine with swirling, surging floodwaters flowing over the continents than within the confines of a beach environment over millions of years.

The likely reason why ‘The majority of jellyfish were dead or did not pulse, …’ is that they were overcome quickly by sediment-laden water, smothered under layer-upon-layer of sand and silt.  So most had no chance to exhibit the usual beach-stranding ‘escape behaviour’ (hence the absence of concave sediment rings).  Interestingly, Hagadorn et al. suggest that the asymmetrical steepened edges of the convex ring in photo G ‘perhaps reflect’ an effort to escape stranding.  But might this actually reflect the jellyfish’s attempt to escape from being buried (by an underwater avalanche of silt) rather than from being stranded on a beach?

The evidence indicating that the jellyfish did not dry out fits better with their being buried while continuously under water.

The absence of any evidence of scavenging was not due to beach-dwelling scavengers having not yet evolved, but to the jellyfish having been covered by sediment quickly.

The lack of any evidence of burrowing by worms etc. in the sediment shows that these layers were buried quickly underneath the overlying layers of sediment—consistent with the global Flood.

The seven sediment bands of jellyfish fossils, across several metres (about 12 ft) of layers, is readily explained by the biblical Flood.  (And remember that seven beds are all that we can see—probably many more jellyfish impressions remain concealed within the quarry rocks.)  

Jellyfish are essentially floaters, at the mercy of strong currents, and perhaps in the fast-moving, sediment-carrying waters of the Flood (Genesis 7:11), the bell-pumping action of jellyfish would have pumped silt/sand/mud into their stomachs and internal cavities, and as their sediment load increased, they would have progressively sunk to the sea bed, being quickly buried as layers of sediment built up.  This also seems to fit with the carcasses all facing the same direction when they were buried, much better than does the Hagadorn et al. ‘storm tide’ scenario.  

So, the evidence fits with the biblical Flood.


TQ: Flat out untrue.  I already told you this, showed you an article with excerpts from the discoverers of the bone in question refuting this, and yet you post it again!

The original authors were under tremendous pressure from evolutionists to retract their statements.  I, however, have seen pictures from their original publishing - it is a microscope slide, and it CLEARLY shows a red blood cell.  In this case, my own observation outweights your assertions.  So I tend to disbelieve you no matter how loud you trumpet it.  The so called "retraction" was less than convincing - a sort of 'we're hanging our head in shame... we thought it was a red blood cell... it looks like a red blood cell... but since we are told that it can't possiblly be a red blood cell, it must therefore be something else'.  Rediculous!  This is what you call evidence?  

And how many dinosaur skins and muscles are fossilized?  Not many.  Why?  Because they are soft, and have no hard parts.  Same as plants.  Use your brain!

Yes, however the rapid fossilization and slow decay aspect of the flood preserved many fossils long enough for imprints of that soft tissue to be present in many fossils (such as the jellyfish).  These fossils being covered by millions of years of sedimentation would certainly not leave the kind of detail of soft tissue we see in these fossils.  

TQ: Three paragraphs and not one exampe

Did you even go to the page?  Did you even read it?  I can say for sure you probably didn't.  In that section are no less than 5 footnotes that point to sources and examples.

Go back to AiG and look again my friend

Human fossils have been found, hundreds of them, but generally in deposits which most creationists would think were post-Flood (e.g. buried in caves during the post-Flood Ice Age—see What about the Ice Age?).  However, in at least one case, human bones have been found in ‘older’ strata.11 Unfortunately, the lack of detailed documentation associated with their removal makes it impossible to say with certainty that they were not the result of subsequent intrusive burial, although nothing we know of suggests they were.

TQ: Another story with no detail.  Very good science evident here


You have the footnote number in the quote you posted, yet you claim no 'detail' which I assume means no source or 'evidence'.  See the little 11?  That's a footnote.  Go to the page and read it again.

TQ: Gup, you have presented nothing but assertions, lies, and stories that I personally corrected you on numerous times.

I am not really swayed by your personal opinions ... especially when you have shown an extreme lack of objectivity, a lack of credibility, a lack of common sense, a lack of logic.  

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Lie for your faith all you want, but do not expect anyone with any intelligence to believe a word you say.  This is sickening and embarassing for christians everywhere.

Don't project your guilt trip on me.  I tell you what I know... in my own words... I link to real scientists with expert opinions (you not liking AiG has doesn't degrade the fact that they report on real scientists with real degrees that do real work).  In fact, one of the things I like about AiG is their integrity.  Don't believe me?  Look at this page -

Arguments Creationists should NOT use - by AiG

Here is a list of evidences that AiG says NOT to use because they are not 'up to snuff'.  They say that these (which are frequently used by many creationists) are either discredited, unproveable, fallicious, or doubtful.  Their stance is that there is so much good evidence, there is no need to use weak evidence.

How many evolution sites post an honest review of weakness in their theories?  Can you link to some?  Usually they just wait for creationists to poke holes (besides the assumed 'missing links') then they try to fix or cover them up.  Of course, I could be wrong - show me where Evolutionists post weaknesses in their theories.

Demon:  Maybe you're a dupe for believing it, but it is a lie none the less.

It is amazing you don't impale yourself on your fork when you eat.  (this is a joke)   The link I provided gives some evidence and reasoning behind the 'story' (as you and TQ like to put it) as to how the Coconino Sandstone got there.  Contrast that with the link you provide that describes NOTHING of how only stark naked claims of age and observational statments of what is there NOW.  Nothing about how it formed... nothing about how they came to know the age.  See, this is what you call evidence - that it is written down somewhere stated as a fact.  Only, this 'fact' only exists because of the evolutionary framework (the theory or educated guess based on assumptions) dictates that it be labled that way.  If creation is true, and the flood really happened, then a whole conglomeration of factors must be considered before a statement of 'fact' can be made.  Only, because the Flood is part of the Bible, and evolution is a humanistic religion, the possibility of a flood is dismissed.  Even though nearly every civilization on earth records some type of global flood in their history, it is ignored.  What DO we see?  We see time and time again where evolutionists look to a localized flood to explain what they observe.  There were all these localized floods all over the earth.  Even in our Mt. Everest discussion, it is assumed the area was 'under water'.  Isn't that convenient... another  localized body of water to explain real observations (marine fossils on Everest).  Yet, I say global flood and suddenly everyone gets uptight and defensive.  

Demon: So we see, once again, that the experts all agree that the Coconino formation is millions of years old and could not have been formed in a few thousand years.

Well, I don't recall seeing any experts listed on that page you posted... let me look again....
The page is done by a guy named  Bob Ribokas.  He is a COBOL programmer, and all his education is in the area of programming languages and computer science.  He has no formal background or training in geology whatsoever, and he doesn't list his source for his information on the Coconino Sandstone.  

To you, this guy is your "expert" qualified to tell you the age of the strata in the Grand Canyon!!?  

Let just revist what you said again:
So we see, once again, that the experts all agree that the Coconino formation is millions of years old and could not have been formed in a few thousand years.


And again, a programmer with absolutely no geological training or education (at least none listed on his resume claims it's true, puts up a website and suddenly he's your source of evidence?  You claim him as an EXPERT!  This just goes to show that YOU, Demon, have absolutely no clue what evidence is... you don't have any concept of what is true or false.  You see something in print that agrees with what you happen to think and it becomes instant evidence.  Yet, I show you evidences from AiG, from people who have actual degrees in the fields they are commenting on, and you don't believe it.  

Demon: They neatly destroy your claim.  

Well it's a good thing your computer programmer expert came along and told you so... goodness knows you wouldn't have known what to think!

Please tell me you have more 'experts' than this guy who is nothing but a guy who likes the grand canyon and made a web page about it!  Oh.... I see you have a 2nd expert page there... well lets take a look at that.

OMG!  CANYON DAVE THE TOURGUIDE IS YOUR OTHER 'EXPERT'?  ROFL.  At least this guy has some college under his belt - which I am assuming.  It says he taught geology at a vocational college.  Hrm... funny though... the college doesn't offer any diplomas or degrees in geology.  Oh I SEE... it's an associates degree in science, and geology is one of the classes in that program.  Not too shabby (at least it's a step up from Bob our canyon lover/expert).  

Well, well, well... it looks like Canyon Dave has even written a book on the grand canyon... perhaps he is an expert afterall?  Er wait... nevermind... it's just a guidebook pointing out interesting stops along one of the trails in the Grand Canyon.  

Wow, Demon, you sure know how to pick your 'experts'.  

But here is some interesting information - canyon dave is describing how 275 million years ago (a full 15 million earlier than our first expert who said 260 million years) there was an "inland sea" that left some nice little fossil shellfish in the Kaibab Formation.  Ahhh... there's nothing like a localized body of water covering everyting and leaving those darn fossils all over the place.  It's only $74 for the tour, and there is a 10% discount if you book online or in person!  Woot!

Demon: The only honest thing for Gup20 to do is admit he was wrong about the Coconino formation, but somehow, I doubt it...

BUT WHO COULD ARGUE WITH THOSE EXPERTS!!  WOW!

You kow what Demon, some how ...  I doubt it too!  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:12 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, Demon, you sure know how to pick your 'experts'

You continually confused good science with who is presenting it!  What matters who gives me the information as long as their sources are good and the information is correct?  You spend all this time bitching about my sources you don't even attempt to disprove the evidence!   Didn't you see Talkorigins references when you checked out the article?
Here let me reprint them for you!

"Hunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification types in small eolian dunes. Sedimentology 24: 361-387.
McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to eolian. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1052, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Reineck, H.-E, and I. B. Singh, 1980. Depositional Sedimentary Environments, 2nd edition, New York: Spinger-Verlag.
Walker, R. G., and N. P. James, eds., 1992. Facies Models, Response to Sea Level Change, Geological Association of Canada."

So let's see, my sources published their work in the Journal of Sedimentary Research, a peer reviewed publication....from here:
journal
"First published in 1931, JSR is the oldest earth science journal dedicated to the field of sedimentology.  Now in its 74th year, JSR continues its long tradition of publishing papers that become benchmark contributions to sedimentary geology.  The journal is broad and international in scope and welcomes contributions that further the fundamental understanding of sedimentary processes, the origin of sedimentary deposits, the workings of sedimentary systems, and the records of earth history contained within sedimentary rocks."

The United States Geological Survey proffesional paper, another peer reviewed publication.

And the Geological association of Canada.

My sources are the experts in the field, no matter who else uses their information!  And you have been spectacularly ineffective in debating the evidcence, so let me say it again, with the full weight of the scientific world of geology behind me,  The Coconino formation is about 260 million years old.  It is formed by petrified sand dunes, this is plainly evident by the composition of the ridges that are petrified, they are formed by wind and definitely not by water.  The quartz sand grains also could not have been formed by water, they are obviously created by wind.  And the burrows and tracks fossilized could not have been created in a flood.   There is no way possible that this formation was laid down quickly by water, your point is destroyed.   Again, my sources are real science, yours are ignorant.

Please tell me you have more 'experts' than this guy who is nothing but a guy who likes the grand canyon and made a web page about it!  Oh.... I see you have a 2nd expert page there... well lets take a look at that.

I've all ready pointed out that the sources I used are real scientists, real peer reviewed journals while you continue to manufacture lies in a feeble attempt to prop up your superstitious claims.  It's plain that you can't do any real research or you would have noticed the sources Talkorigins posted when you read the article.  And your inability to do any real research is your main problem, along with being so gullible as to buy into ancient superstitious myths and let's not forget your propensity for willful ignorance!

BUT WHO COULD ARGUE WITH THOSE EXPERTS!!  WOW!

Yeah, who could argue with the Journal for sedimentary Research, the Geological Association of Canada and the USGS, certainly not you!

Again, the only honest thing for you to do is admit your error, but you obviously don't have the intellectual integrity to do that...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:56 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You asked a rediculous question, and I responded in kind

Hmm, seems to me that you were the one who asked why prehistoric man didn't have more modern knowledge.  I asked the same.  It is a ridiculous question, isn't it?  Then why did you ask it of me?

Actually I did read the page.  The point is that you guys swore up and down that 'NO ASSUMPTIONS HAD TO BE MADE' when clearly there are assumptions that have to be made.

As Demon already explained (ad nauseum) the assumptions you are proclaiming are not made, those that are made are easily seen to be false if incorrect.

Here is the trend in evolution -

Let's see the trend in creationism, from two of the biggies, AiG and ICR:
AiG:
"The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge."

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
Translation-science is wrong if the bible says different
and Henry Morris of ICR:
1. "When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data"  
2. "The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed"  
3."No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."
4."There seems to be no possible way to avoid the conclusion that if the Bible and Christianity are true at all, the geologic ages must be rejected altogether."
Now that's good science.  No assumptions present here!

You seem to have a lot of 'explainations' why all this evidence doesn't really exist.  But wait - does this evidence not exist like the assumptions for radiometric dating dont' exist?  Does this evidence not exist like reptiles don't keep growing all their lives?  

This "evidence" doesn't exist.  Clear enough.  As we've seen, it's been two weeks of you claiming to offer evidence, and all that has happened is Demon and I have had to point out first year science facts to you (which you continue to ignore)

Did you read the Jellyfish fossil link I gave you?

Let's look at that, shall we?  Quotes from the article:
"fossilized impressions"
So we have casts, not actual jellyfish.
‘Preservation of a soft-bodied organism is incredibly rare, but a whole deposit of them is like finding your own vein of gold’
wow, support for what I was saying!  Thanks Gup!
"The answer, say the paleontologists, is that these fossils are over half a billion years old, i.e. they lived before land animals and birds had evolved. "
Makes sense to me, but wait!  AiG leaps into action (and idiocy):
"But note that this ‘explanation’ for the absence of scavengers assumes that evolution is demonstrated fact—which it most certainly isn’t."
Hmm, seems they make an assumption of their own, one that completely contradicts the facts.
This is my favorite part:
"The preservation of the sand ripples is easily explained.  Being at depth rather than in a tidal zone, waves did not erode the sand ripples.  Also, ripples can only be preserved when covered by a different type of sediment—in this case, the ripples in coarse sand were overlain by a finer silty sand and red oxidized mud.

Such a starkly different type of sediment is much more likely to have been carried and deposited by swirling floodwaters than by a returning tide in a beach environment."
I love it!  sand ripples would be erased by the ebb and flow of tides, but swirling flood waters dumping an avalanche of silt on top of them wouldn't disturb them at all!  Brilliant!

So, the evidence fits with the biblical Flood.

Not hardly

The original authors were under tremendous pressure from evolutionists to retract their statements.

Ah yes.  The satanic cabal of scientists.  I forgot about them

The so called "retraction" was less than convincing - a sort of 'we're hanging our head in shame... we thought it was a red blood cell... it looks like a red blood cell... but since we are told that it can't possiblly be a red blood cell, it must therefore be something else'.

Right, and the fact that it was printed in a pop science magazine at the time when Jurassic Park was the biggest movie had nothing to do with the "hinting" of the discovery of dinosaur DNA in a magazine for popular consumption?  Funny how there was no mention of "red blood cells" in the scientific paper published on that find.  Funny how the creationists didn't jump on the story till ten years later, but the satanic evilutionists were smart enough to smother it before hand.

Yes, however the rapid fossilization and slow decay aspect of the flood preserved many fossils long enough for imprints of that soft tissue to be present in many fossils (such as the jellyfish).

Yes, and how common are these fossils?  Let's see, what did your article say:
"Preservation of a soft-bodied organism is incredibly rare, but a whole deposit of them is like finding your own vein of gold"
Wow, that sounds rare, doesn't it? You'd think they'd be pretty common, seeing as how everything had tons of sediment dumped on it at once.

These fossils being covered by millions of years of sedimentation would certainly not leave the kind of detail of soft tissue we see in these fossils.  

So, just to be clear, we'd expect them to be pretty rare, right?  Kind of like "finding your own vein of gold" type of rare?

Did you even go to the page?  Did you even read it?

Well, let's see this earth shattering evidence in the footnotes (you think they'd put that front and center, especially since it's the whole point of the article!:
Precambrian pollen:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC341.html
"Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen. [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981] "
Next we have...you've got to be kidding me.  Moab Man!?!?  Please!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC110.html
The bones were found 15 feet deep in loose sand, not in a rock matrix. Their postures were similar to known Indian burials. The bones were unfossilized and partly decayed, and dating them yielded an age of 210 +/- 70 years. In short, they were a fairly recent burial. [Kuban 1998]

That's the best you can do?

I am not really swayed by your personal opinions ... especially when you have shown an extreme lack of objectivity, a lack of credibility, a lack of common sense, a lack of logic.

Since I've seen your idea of the above qualities, I'm quite glad you don't see the same in me.

I link to real scientists with expert opinions



In fact, one of the things I like about AiG is their integrity.  Don't believe me?  Look at this page -

After years of using those arguments and being refuted, they finally smarten up.  BTW, I'm well aware of that page.

Their stance is that there is so much good evidence, there is no need to use weak evidence.

So when do we get to see the good stuff?

show me where Evolutionists post weaknesses in their theories.

They're called scientific journals.  The "poking of holes" is called the scientific process.

Contrast that with the link you provide that describes NOTHING of how only stark naked claims of age and observational statments of what is there NOW.

You may want to actually read that post.  It is an in depth examination of the formation of the Coconino Sandstone.  I'm not going to repost it for you here.

Only, this 'fact' only exists because of the evolutionary framework

And it fits quite well with the "facts" from a multitude of other scientific disciplines.
If creation is true, and the flood really happened, then a whole conglomeration of factors must be considered before a statement of 'fact' can be made.

The main one being "where is all the evidence?"
evolution is a humanistic religion

Wow, getting really tired of that old chestnut...

Well, I don't recall seeing any experts listed on that page you posted

Check again

Wow, still nothing.  Well, at least I didn't have my hopes up.











-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 03:42 AM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What does it matter if I have a degree, the sources I use all do!

I just can't take you seriously anymore, Demon.  After using programmer bob and canyon dave as your source 'experts'.  Then you berate AiG's real scientists.

Here is the game evolutionists play - If you are not an evolutionist, you are seen as having an inferior knowledge and are said to be 'laughable' or 'unreliable'.  Then, when someone who is an evolutionist or a scientist of any kind shows observation evidence that flies in the face of evolutionary though, they are ridiculed, berated and undermined.  If they wish to keep their standing in the 'scientific community', they have to re-organize their findings within the evolutionary framework.  Otherwise they are ostracized and their work is ignored.  THEN, evolutionists, after having ignored and ostracized anyone who disagrees with them come back and say 'there is no evidence'... or 'where are any experts who agree with you'.  Well, they are all being punished in obscurity and censorship because they reported findings you guys didn't like.  The dinosaur red blood cell issue is a perfect example.  Why do you think the creationism has so many new scientists all the time?  Why do you think creation science is stronger than ever??  Why do you think there are so many people converting from evolutionism to creationism?  Because evolutionism is so dogmatic and unwilling to change in the face of evidence and fact.  

TQ: Hmm, seems to me that you were the one who asked why prehistoric man didn't have more modern knowledge.

Actually, I never asked that.  Your silly questions were in response to me stating that I had posted those 15 young earth entries and posting a link to the AiG page that had the 'full enchilada' - meaning all the information about the points that I didn't post.  

I would never have asked why prehistoric man didn't have more modern knowledge.  In fact, it was my indication that I believed Adam to be far more intelligent, and have far more mental capability and capacity than modern man.  

But if you are still not convinced, here is the quote:

GUP:  If you wish to have the "full enchilada" visit AiG.

TQ: I go there, and find no more information there then I did here.  They have asseritions that something "must be", but no studies indicating whyit must be so, or the nececessary steps that would need to be taken, etc.  Here's a few questions for youWhy did Noah not build the ark in the local automobile factory?  Why did Moses not use GPS to lead the Israelites out of the desert more quickly?  They were as smart as us after all, so why didn't they have any of this?  Why didn't anyone invent the plane back then?



It seems like you ran your responses for a coupel of different points together.

TQ: As Demon already explained (ad nauseum) the assumptions you are proclaiming are not made, those that are made are easily seen to be false if incorrect.

This is getting rediculous - Answer this, yes or no - Are any assumptions made in determining a date from radiometric data?  The only answer is YES.  AiG, TalkOrigins, universities and colleges... all these pages I showed you say that assumpitons must be made.  Many will argue over the accuracy and margin of error created by the assumpitons... but all say that assumptions exist.  All except for Demon (which you have echoed).  But, then again, Demon quotes computer programmer Bob - grand canyon lover and visitor - as his expert sources... LOL.  Maybe he could get Canyon Dave to break out his radiometric equiptment and give us all a demonstration... OH THAT"S RIGHT... canyon dave is a tourguide, not an actual scientist.  He doesn't have any radiometric equipment.  LOL... hahaha!  

I love it!  sand ripples would be erased by the ebb and flow of tides, but swirling flood waters dumping an avalanche of silt on top of them wouldn't disturb them at all!  Brilliant!

In fact the brilliance of this escapes many evolutonists.  The concepts they are talking about are actually obsrevable in experimentation - evolution is not observable and cannot be 're-created' in any lab or experiment.  

TQ: Yes, and how common are these fossils?  Let's see, what did your article say:

The article quoted one of the palentologists that made the find.  They came to the conclusion that the find was millions of years old (based on the evolutonary pre-conceptions).  Obviously we don't agree with everything they say or think.  And as I said before, the flood scenario makes a lot more sense given what we know about obersvational (aka 'real' or 'present' science) science.  

You may want to actually read that post.  It is an in depth examination of the formation of the Coconino Sandstone.  I'm not going to repost it for you here.

And just as riveting as programmer Bob could make it?  lol

The main one being "where is all the evidence?"

It's everywhere... evolutionists use their framework to try to explain it away... or they come up with an alternate story (like we see so often with our 'localized flooding' stories) that sounds enough unlike the Bible to pass evolutionary scrutiny.    You guys just refuse to acknowlege it.  

Wow, getting really tired of that old chestnut.

Kind of psyco to get irritated with something that doesn't exist isn't it?  You going to start swatting imaginary flies soon?

It's like atheists - never seen a bunch of people get so mad at someone who they say doesn't exist.  

TQ: Check again
Wow, still nothing.  Well, at least I didn't have my hopes up.


You are welcome to visit Demon's link and find the 'expert' on the page he links to:

Grand Canyon

These web pages are maintained by:

Bob Ribokas

The author is not employed by nor is in another way affiliated with the National Park Service. Any views expressed in this document are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Park Service, InfoMagic or TERADYNE, Inc.
Comments and suggestions are welcomed.



(Edited by Gup20 4/20/2004 at 5:21 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 1:45 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are welcome to visit Demon's link and find the 'expert' on the page he links to:

"Didn't you see Talkorigins references when you checked out the article?
Here let me reprint them for you!

"Hunter, R. E., 1977. Basic types of stratification types in small eolian dunes. Sedimentology 24: 361-387.
McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to eolian. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper no. 1052, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Reineck, H.-E, and I. B. Singh, 1980. Depositional Sedimentary Environments, 2nd edition, New York: Spinger-Verlag.
Walker, R. G., and N. P. James, eds., 1992. Facies Models, Response to Sea Level Change, Geological Association of Canada." "

Guess you still can't refute the facts, that's why you're claiming my sources are bad.  It's obvious you lose, AGAIN!



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:20 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then you berate AiG's real scientists

Creationists lost their right to be called real scientists when they sign that statement of faith that says they will ignore or overlook any evidence that disagrees with their creationist viewpoint.

It seems like you ran your responses for a coupel of different points together.

And it seems that you still haven't adressed the point I brought up.   Namely, why is it surprising that it took prehistoric man that long to discover agriculture and written language?  How long did it take us to invent GPS and automobiles and PC's?  IF Adam was so full of knowledge, then why did it take mankind 6000 years to reach the technological age?  Strange how you keep avoiding obvious questions.

Are any assumptions made in determining a date from radiometric data?

Yes, but that wasn't your original point, was it? From earlier:
1. ALL dating methods (including ones that point to thousands, not billions of years) are based on assumptions—beliefs, no matter how reasonable-sounding, that you can’t prove, but must accept by faith. For example:

1.-Assuming how much of a particular chemical was originally present;
2.-Assuming that there has been no leaching by water of the chemicals in or out of the rock;
3.Assuming that radioactive decay rates have stayed the same for billions of years, and more.


1. No
2. Checked for and corrected, so wrong
3. I assume the earth isn't going to stop spinning and fling me into space.  Is that wrong?
You stated these assumptions needed to be made, Demon refuted it.

But, then again, Demon quotes computer programmer Bob - grand canyon lover and visitor - as his expert sources... LOL.  Maybe he could get Canyon Dave to break out his radiometric equiptment and give us all a demonstration... OH THAT"S RIGHT... canyon dave is a tourguide, not an actual scientist.  He doesn't have any radiometric equipment.  LOL... hahaha!

Funny.  You apparently missed the large list of references at the bottom of Demon's post.  Once again, you prove you have the reading comprehension of a three year old.

 In fact the brilliance of this escapes many evolutonists.  The concepts they are talking about are actually obsrevable in experimentation - evolution is not observable and cannot be 're-created' in any lab or experiment.  

Has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, namely, the avalanche that buried the jellyfish would have destroyed the ripple patterns (do I need to draw you diagrams here Gup?), but I'll adress it anyways.
much of science does not rely on direct observation for testing and verification. Were this so, much of physics, biology, and virtually of all of astronomy and geology would not qualify as sciences. What is important is that phenomena are able to be investigated through hypothetico-deduction. Hypotheses about historical events lend themselves to predictions that must logically be true if the hypothesis itself is true. For example, if birds and “reptiles” have shared a common ancestor, we should expect to find transitional fossils in the appropriate strata (e.g. a bird/reptile transitional fossil should not be found in strata that, for example, pre-date the reptile/amphibian split), the fossil should be clearly transitional (as Archaeopteryx clearly is), and there should be specific evidences observed in extant birds and “reptiles” that indicate common ancestry (including anatomical, molecular and morphological). Finding molecular evidences that, for example, indicated that birds and bacteria were more closely related than birds and “reptiles” are, and finding an indisputable avian fossil in sedimentary rocks that were indisputably Pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution. This is a simplification – the point is that historical events are just as testable as directly observable phenomena are using hypothetico-deduction.


The article quoted one of the palentologists that made the find.  They came to the conclusion that the find was millions of years old (based on the evolutonary pre-conceptions).  Obviously we don't agree with everything they say or think.  And as I said before, the flood scenario makes a lot more sense given what we know about obersvational (aka 'real' or 'present' science) science.  

Once again, has nothing to do with the point I made, which is that sof tissued fossils are rare, as you exclaim they would be if the ToE was correct.  They are not common, as you proclaim they would be in the flood "model"

And just as riveting as programmer Bob could make it?  lol

You make it incredibly difficult not to resort to name calling, as it is so completely obvious that you have not even read Demon's post, yet feel you are qualified to critique it.  The programmer you are deriding was responsible for the very first paragraph of the relevant information.  The rest was copy and pasted from Talk origins (as Demon stated) and is referenced right at the bottom of the article!  Of course, since you never read it, you wouldn't know this, would you.  Either you never read it, or you refuse to discuss it because you know you are outmatched, and instead stoop to ad hominem attack.  Which is it Gup?

It's everywhere... evolutionists use their framework to try to explain it away... or they come up with an alternate story (like we see so often with our 'localized flooding' stories) that sounds enough unlike the Bible to pass evolutionary scrutiny.    You guys just refuse to acknowlege it.  

Tehn can you post some of it already?  I'd be really interested to see some actual evidence rather than the fraud, innuendo and lies you've presented so far.

You are welcome to visit Demon's link and find the 'expert' on the page he links to:

Same to you:
Grand Canyon






-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 2:27 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Creationists lost their right to be called real scientists when they sign that statement of faith that says they will ignore or overlook any evidence that disagrees with their creationist viewpoint.

Do you remember the 'scopes trial' incident?  Nearly all the evidences for the evolutionist point of view used in that trial have since, been repealed, changed, or refuted as false.  It is a creationists assertion that the Bible is true.  If we bend at the slightest notion of contrary 'evidence', that shows we do not mean what we say or believe what we profess to believe.  

Lets look at the flip side of the coin.  When those researchers first came out and said they found blood vessels in the T-Rex bone, did evolutionary thought fold up it's tents and go home packing?  No - they challenged it.  Why?  Because, despite the perceived evidence, they believed more strongly in the idea of evolution - so strongly that any condemning evidence was dismissed.  

As these examples show, theories change... ideas change... the interpretation of evidence constantly changes.  Creationists are simply putting their foot down on something that doesn't change - Gods Word - and saying here is our starting point.  Here is our foundation.  

The fact that you actually believe that creationists loose their right to be called scientists displays undeniable proof of what I was talking about before.  That as soon as someone goes against the evolution establishment, they are ostracized.  They are immediately considered outcasts.  Yet they have gone to the same schools... they have earned the same degrees.... they have the same level of education - yet on the sole basis that they believe in the Bible, they are labeled as inferior.  Labeled as incompetent.  When what they see with their own eyes in their own fields of study and practice or in their own labs confirms the Bible, they are branded 'a traitor' to the establishment.  

And you call me a bigot?

TQ: Yes, but that wasn't your original point, was it?

In fact, I made a couple of different posts with different assumptions.  My point was simply that assumptions must be made, therefore it can't be considered foolproof.  You and Demon made it a point to say that no assumptions had to be made.  I responded to this notion with aggressive arguments stating that Yes, indeed assumptions do have to be made.  At that point we began arguing about if assumptions were made or not, and it was no longer about what assumptions had to be made.  

I appreciate your candid honesty in admitting that, yes, there are assumptions made in radiometric dating.  I will accept this notion with your implied caveat that you are not admitting to the specific assumptions I listed, but simply that assumptions are made.  

TQ: I assume the earth isn't going to stop spinning and fling me into space.  Is that wrong?

Probably not, but regardless of right or wrong, it's an assumption (which was my point).

TQ: You apparently missed the large list of references at the bottom of Demon's post.

'Well Bob - I wouldn't say I've been missing it' (from the movie Office Space)

You apparently missed it when he linked to the programmer/nature-lover and Canyon Dave the tour guide - that was sure funny... LOL.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, namely, the avalanche that buried the jellyfish would have destroyed the ripple patterns (do I need to draw you diagrams here Gup?), but I'll address it anyways.

Well I guess I missed it.... where did you mention an avalanche?  Diagrams would be lovely - they would show me just how much you don't understand what you are talking about.  

TQ: the fossil should be clearly transitional (as Archaeopteryx clearly is), and there should be specific evidences observed in extant birds and “reptiles” that indicate common ancestry

Funny - National Geographic recanted on Archaeopteryx saying that it was a fake.  
Update on Hoax Archaeopteryx - National Geographic Recants

Edited in: This is a mistake on my part.  I mistook Archaeoraptor for Archaeopteryx.  The article above refers to Archaeoraptor being a fake.  I apologize for mis-posting.

If evolution were true, there would be millions of these transitional fossils all over the place... there would be no need to create fakes (such as Archaeopteryx or Piltdown man, etc).

TQ: finding an indisputable avian fossil in sedimentary rocks that were indisputably Pre-Cambrian would falsify evolution

Hrm... but finding a Cretaceous fossil in the Paleocene in the Ojo Alamo Formation in the San Juan Basin of north-western New Mexico somehow 'nothing to do with the point you made'.    
(  Fassett, J.E., Zielinski, R.A. and Budahn, J.R., Dinosarus that did not die: evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico; in: Koeberl, C. and MacLeod, K.G. (eds.), Catastrophic events and mass extinctions: Impacts and Beyond, Geological Society of America special paper 356, pp. 307-336, 2002)

TQ: You make it incredibly difficult not to resort to name calling

You know, my wife says the same thing... hrm.  

TQ: so completely obvious that you have not even read Demon's post, yet feel you are qualified to critique it.

You are correct in that assumption.  I went to his first link and saw that he was quoting the computer programmer / grand canyon vactioner... I read his quotes.  I got so side tracked laughing about the absurdity of that, when I came back to finish responding I saw the other link - again a useless post to 'canyon Dave the tour guide' which was even funnier than the last.  I pretty much skimmed over the rest of it, not paying much attention to the details... Perhaps if he wants to repost it sans the links to Canyon Dave and programmer Bob I'll 'give it my time and consideration'.  As it was, his post seemed like a colossal waste of my time.  Hence, you are correct in your assumption that I 'did not read it'.  As I said, should he wish to re-present his argument I will give it more attention.  Provided he doesn't waste my time with links like Canyon Dave.

Tehn can you post some of it already?

You have completely ignored it up to this point, what would give me the impression youwouldn't just do that again?

1.  Gulf of Mexico
2.  Australia's Burning Moutain
3.  A classic tillite reclassified as submarine debris flow
4.  Canyon Creation
5.  A canyon in 6 days
6.  Devil's Tower
7.  Lake Missoula
8.  Three Sisters (with evidence of fossils gonig verticlly through "millions of years" of strata)
9.  Paleosols
10.  Rapid Rock
11.  The Grand Canyon - Evidence of The Flood
And many more!

Much of this we (YET and I) have brought to your attention, but you ignore and dismiss it.

For example, you can see from this chart from Earth Sciences Waseda University (in Japan) a table of the formations that EVERY FORMATION except for the Coconino were some kind of 'flood' or body of water covering.  Then in the middle of all this water everywhere - coconino made of desert sand dunes.  You can also see from that chart the many marine type fossils from all over the Grand Canyon.  



(Edited by Gup20 4/20/2004 at 7:25 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 5:19 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is a creationists assertion that the Bible is true.  If we bend at the slightest notion of contrary 'evidence', that shows we do not mean what we say or believe what we profess to believe.  


What do you use to determine your interpretation is correct?  What makes your own personal interpretation inerrant?

For example, you can see from this chart from Earth Sciences Waseda University (in Japan) a table of the formations that EVERY FORMATION except for the Coconino were some kind of 'flood' or body of water covering.


The chart simplifies a lot.  The Surprise Canyon formation is an erosional formation into the Redwall  Limestone.  It contains streambeds cut into the underlying formation with chunks of higher rock spalled off and fallen into the stream.





(Edited by Apoapsis 4/20/2004 at 5:42 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:40 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fact that you actually believe that creationists loose their right to be called scientists displays undeniable proof of what I was talking about before.  That as soon as someone goes against the evolution establishment, they are ostracized.

Wrong.  They are ostracized because they do not follow the scientific method, and their methods and conclusions are faulty.  Scienists do not start with a conclusion then look for evidence to support it.  They start with the evidence and go where it leads.

You apparently missed it when he linked to the programmer/nature-lover and Canyon Dave the tour guide - that was sure funny... LOL.

What's really funny is all the information in there is valid, and you refuse to admit that it was one small paragraph that served as an introduction to the meat of Demon's post.  What's hilarious is that you still refuse to acknowledge the evidence presented, and instead continue with ad hominem attacks on a source that didn't even add to the debate.

Funny - National Geographic recanted on Archaeopteryx saying that it was a fake.


Are you seriously this simple?  from AiG article:
‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1


Archaeopteryx...Archaeoraptor.  Notice the difference?  National Geographic rushed to publication before scientists could examine the find, which was "discovered" by a chinese peasant.  He made the fossil up to sell to collectors.  The funny part is, the fossils he made the composite up of actually strengthened the case for dinosaur to avian evolution.

If evolution were true, there would be millions of these transitional fossils all over the place... there would be no need to create fakes (such as Archaeopteryx or Piltdown man, etc).

Archaeopteryx is not a fake, and piltdown man (a fraud discovered by scientists) is only ever mentioned by creationists.  There are a lot of transitionals, which demon and I have presented. If you want to see them again, go to talk origins, search the archive for "transitional fossils"

but finding a Cretaceous fossil in the Paleocene in the Ojo Alamo Formation in the San Juan Basin of north-western New Mexico somehow 'nothing to do with the point you made'.

No, and why am I not surprised you can't follow?  dinosaurs lived, they all died out about 65 MYA. Some may have suvived a short time past that.  It doesn't overthrow evolution.   Now, if you can find evidence that a mammoth or any other large animal was present back then, then evolution has problems.  An animal living a little longer than thought?  Not a problem.  Following?

Why should we take youseriously when your judge of what a good source is is what he does for a living?  

I'll respond to your evidences in a bit






-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:00 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have completely ignored it up to this point, what would give me the impression youwouldn't just do that again?

1.  Gulf of Mexico
2.  Australia's Burning Moutain
3.  A classic tillite reclassified as submarine debris flow
4.  Canyon Creation
5.  A canyon in 6 days
6.  Devil's Tower
7.  Lake Missoula
8.  Three Sisters (with evidence of fossils gonig verticlly through "millions of years" of strata)
9.  Paleosols
10.  Rapid Rock
11.  The Grand Canyon - Evidence of The Flood
And many more!


And yet, none of this is evidence of a young earth!  All these fit nicely with modern geological explainations!  you were shown conclusively that the Grand Canyon could not POSSIBLY have been formed in a single world wide flood, yet you continue to ignore reality!

Funny - National Geographic recanted on Archaeopteryx saying that it was a fake.  
Update on Hoax Archaeopteryx - National Geographic Recants


Funny, you still suck at research!  National geographic did NOT recant on Archaeopteryx, check your source and learn how to read!
From the article you linked to:

"After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’1"

You'll notice that this is not about Archaeopteryx but Archaeoraptor.  And of course it was a real scientist who made the discovery that it was a composite.  Archaeopteryx is still an excellent example of a transitional species.

If evolution were true, there would be millions of these transitional fossils all over the place... there would be no need to create fakes (such as Archaeopteryx or Piltdown man, etc).

Why would there be millions?  Fossilization is such a haphazard process, most organisms don't get fossilized.  And anyway, the thousands of transitional fossils we have found are more than enough to support evolution.  And you don't understand (what else is new...)  that it was real scientists who discovered the hoaxes of Archaeoraptor and Piltdown man.  Once again, your research sucks.

The fact that you actually believe that creationists loose their right to be called scientists displays undeniable proof of what I was talking about before.

No, a scientist goes where the facts lead, they start out with no preconceived ideas.  Creationists already know what the "evidence " will support and reject anything that disagrees with their view.  This is called bias and it does preclude creationists from being scientists.

In fact, I made a couple of different posts with different assumptions.  My point was simply that assumptions must be made, therefore it can't be considered foolproof.  

But until you explain what assumptions make radiometric dating unreliable, you have nothing.  The 3 assumptions you claimed did that were shown to be wrong.  And looking at the 10's of thousands of radiometric dates that all concur, the conclusion that can be drawn is that radiometric dating gives us a very good estimation of how old the Earth is.

You apparently missed it when he linked to the programmer/nature-lover and Canyon Dave the tour guide - that was sure funny... LOL.

As I said before, that's one of your many problems, the web site I posted used the most up to the date information, who cares who presented it, it is correct.  It doesn't matter who presents something in science as long as it's verifiable and can be tested by independent sources.  The Coconino sandstone formation is about 260 million years old and could not have formed by a flood, your point is disproven.

Hrm... but finding a Cretaceous fossil in the Paleocene in the Ojo Alamo Formation in the San Juan Basin of north-western New Mexico somehow 'nothing to do with the point you made'.

Explain to us how this is a problem for evolution?

Much of this we (YET and I) have brought to your attention, but you ignore and dismiss       it.

That's because it is NOT evidence for a young earth!  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:50 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What do you use to determine your interpretation is correct?  What makes your own personal interpretation inerrant?

We use the tools of science, logic and observation.  Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence to confirm the Bible, or what we perceive it to mean (as I described in my last post when I posted those 'evidences').

Wrong.  They are ostracized because they do not follow the scientific method, and their methods and conclusions are faulty.  Scienists do not start with a conclusion then look for evidence to support it.  They start with the evidence and go where it leads.

Here is the 'scientific method':
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The problem is, that in step 2, where you come up with a hypothesis - in the current educational and scientific climate you are 'not allowed' to formulate a hypothesis that does not categorically confirm, accept, or pre-suppose evolutionary thought.  If you do so - you are ostracized.  

It should be pointed out that regardless of your hypothesis, the method and tools for steps 3 and 4 (logic and observation) can be accomplished.  Often, this leads to changes in your hypothesis.  Therefore, steps 1 and 2 are independent of steps 3 and 4, in that regardless of your hypothetical framework (regardless of your belief in creation or evolution) you can accomplish steps 3 and 4 accurately.  Because your experiments make something possible, doesn't necessarily mean it's the ONLY possibility (which evolutionism professes).  

This is what happens today.  Evolutionism rules out any other possibility from which to form an alternate or contrary hypothesis by ostracizing those who make them, and then celebrates the the result that no alternate conclusions are arrived at.  Of course, those who make alternate hypothesis are ostracized, therefore making their resulting work (accurate as it may be - seeing as how operational science is independent of hypothetical framework) easier to dismiss.  "oh they are not real scientists, so we can ignore their findings"  Which is pretty much exactly what you guys have said.  You say their work (their execution of steps 3 and 4) is substandard, but you fail to provide a single example.  

TQ: Why should we take youseriously when your judge of what a good source is is what he does for a living?

Oh?  Wasn't aware that I had done that.  Can you point out where you mis-interpreted that nonsense?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:52 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

1. What phenomena and observations led creationists to believe that creationism is valid?  I don't mean what proof have they found to support the idea, I mean what led them to this conclusion in the first place?  The answer is "because the bible says so!"  So, strike one for ceationist "scienists"
2.And what scientifically verifiable hypothesis have creationist "scientists" come up with?  "goddidit" doesn't really count as a scientifically verifiable hypothesis, does it?  Strike two
3.And what predictions have creationist "scientists" made?  Seeing as how you laughed and responded with "the ToE is in the prophecy business now, is it?" when I told you of predictions made by the ToE, I would have to say none.  Strke three
4.Well, properly formed experiments don't happen with creationist "scientists", so scrap that.  Since they have no predictions, scrap that as well.
Look at that, strike four!

Evolutionism rules out any other possibility from which to form an alternate or contrary hypothesis by ostracizing those who make them, and then celebrates the the result that no alternate conclusions are arrived at

How exactly are all the scientists indoctrinated into this cabal of evil?  Are we talking grad student and higher, or are undergrads involved in the cover up as well?  Do they sacrifice virgins under th elight of a full moon?  (Seems like a waste of a virgin, but what ever you have to do for the cause, right?)

Oh?  Wasn't aware that I had done that.  Can you point out where you mis-interpreted that nonsense?


You forget to take your meds again?
I went to his first link and saw that he was quoting the computer programmer / grand canyon vactioner... I read his quotes.  I got so side tracked laughing about the absurdity of that, when I came back to finish responding I saw the other link - again a useless post to 'canyon Dave the tour guide' which was even funnier than the last.  I pretty much skimmed over the rest of it, not paying much attention to the details...

Let's see, saw the source, ignored what is presented, ad hominem attacks on the source...Yep, just what you claim to forget doing.

(Edited by TQ 4/20/2004 at 7:18 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:16 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like to apologize for mis-posting.  I had stated that National Geographic had recanted on Archaeopteryx.  This was (as both TQ and Demon have pointed out) in error.  They (NG) recanted on Archaeoraptor.

The Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a transitional fossil.  AiG link on Archaeopteryx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:30 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. What phenomena and observations led creationists to believe that creationism is valid?

I already gave you 11.  There are plenty more, I just did't have time to list them.

2.And what scientifically verifiable hypothesis have creationist "scientists" come up with?

You are kidding, right?  Again, see those 11 items I mentioned.  

And what predictions have creationist "scientists" made?

See my answer to 1 & 2

4.Well, properly formed experiments don't happen with creationist "scientists", so scrap that.

And I see we are back to our rash generilizations without any 'scrap' of evidence.  mmmm.... Your favorite.


BTW - those attacks on Demon's sources were not attacks on their professions... I was simply pointing out that Demon was posting geological arguments with sources who weren't geologists.  Not that computer programming or tour guiding is bad... it's just that neither of those professions are 'geologist'.  

(Edited by Gup20 4/20/2004 at 7:45 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:38 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a transitional fossil.


Then please explain the numerous reptilian features present.  Also, please explain why so many creationists insist it is a reptile (for example, Duane Gish)

And gup, you totally missed what is meant by your own listing of the scientific method.

(Edited by TQ 4/20/2004 at 7:41 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:40 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Young Earth Toad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Archaeopteryx cannot be a true bird because it lacks downy feathers and a keeled breast bone which should be present in a true bird, this indicates that it was somewhat capable of flight, similar to an ostrich or penguin. But not powered flight like in modern birds...




-------
 


Posts: 50 | Posted: 7:50 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



I love it!


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 7:51 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon:  conclusively that the Grand Canyon could not POSSIBLY have been formed in a single world wide flood, yet you continue to ignore reality!

Yet I have shown you conclusively how the Grand Canyon could have easily been formed in a single world wide flood, yet you continue to ignore reality.  

National geographic did NOT recant on Archaeopteryx, check your source and learn how to read!

You are correct, and I apologize for my mistake.  Perhaps I will take your advice and see if the University offers any remedial reading courses.  Or perhaps not.  

And looking at the 10's of thousands of radiometric dates that all concur

Well, I would like to see the data that supports this.  Do you have a link to the page with percentages of how many times dates are compared... how many times the dates agree... how many times the dates disagree?

And lets try to find an actual link... from a university or something... not a propaganda link that makes generalizations without source information.  If I go to a site and it gives a percentage without confirming data that would be a waste of time.  

The Coconino sandstone formation is about 260 million years old and could not have formed by a flood, your point is disproven.

Why?  Because there were no fossils in it?  When all the other formations formed in the presence of flooding or underwater conditions, but somehow this one is different.  Not likely.  


 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 8:03 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Archaeopteryx is a bird, not a transitional fossil.  AiG link on        Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx:
Avian characteristics:
1) Feathers - although feathers can hardly be considered only an avian characteristics when we see that dinosaurs developed feathers also.
2) Opposable hallux (big toe).
3) Furcula (wishbone) formed of two clavicles fused together in the midline.
4) Pubis elongate and directed backward.

Reptilian characteristics
5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered.
6) Trunk region vertebra are free.
7) Bones are pneumatic.
8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).
16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
20) Claws on 3 unfused digits.
21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
23) Gastralia present.
The above taken from TalkOrigins.

Now how can you possibly say that Archaeopteryx is just a bird????  It obviously has more reptilian characteristics than avian characteristics.  An honest appraisal of the evidence clearly shows that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between reptiles (dinosaurs) and birds.  I would love to see your explaination of the Archaeopteryx based on the creation model...

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:20 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I would like to see the data that supports this.  Do you have a link to the page with percentages of how many times dates are compared... how many times the dates agree... how many times the dates disagree?

And lets try to find an actual link... from a university or something... not a propaganda link that makes generalizations without source information.  If I go to a site and it gives a percentage without confirming data that would be a waste of time.


Go to the USGS, the United States Geological Survey site, if you want more in depth information, I'm sure they'll provide it for you.  
But just to stress a few points...
From here:USGS

"The oldest rocks on Earth, found in western Greenland, have been dated by four independent radiometric dating methods at 3.7-3.8 billion years. Rocks 3.4-3.6 billion years in age have been found in southern Africa, western Australia, and the Great Lakes region of North America. "

Notice that these rocks have been dated by 4 independent radiometric dating methods.  It is impossible that all 4 different methods could be flawed and still give the same date!

"The oldest Moon rocks are from the lunar highlands and were formed when the early lunar crust was partially or entirely molten. These rocks, of which only a few were returned by the Apollo missions, have been dated by two methods at between 4.4-4.5 billion years in age."

Again, the dates obtained have been from 2 different methods and they agree.

So radiometric dating is the accepted norm in geology and physics.  It is up to you to disprove it.  Contact the USGS if you want a list of dates all ready aquired.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:10 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yet I have shown you conclusively how the Grand Canyon could have easily been formed in a single world wide flood, yet you continue to ignore reality.

No you haven't!  Your supposed example, the Coconino sandstone formation, has been conclusively shown to be 260 million years old!
And it has been shown that the Coconino could not POSSIBLY been formed by water.
So all ready we see the Grand canyon could not have been formed by a single world wide flood.  

Now the Kaibab and Toroweap formations, that are above the Coconino, are made of limestone.  Limestone forms in shallow warm seas and is composed of the shells and bones of organisms, like bivalves, corals, some microorganisms.  These layers are 100's of feet thick so it took millions of years for these formations to form.  A flood could not have caused the formation of Kaibab and Toroweap, simply impossible.  Again, the Grand Canyon could not possibly be formed by one giant world wide flood!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:06 PM on April 20, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the USGS:

So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

More from same page:

The best age for the Earth comes not from dating individual rocks but by considering the Earth and meteorites as part of the same evolving system in which the isotopic composition of lead, specifically the ratio of lead-207 to lead-206 changes over time owing to the decay of radioactive uranium-235 and uranium-238, respectively. Scientists have used this approach to determine the time required for the isotopes in the Earth's oldest lead ores, of which there are only a few, to evolve from its primordial composition, as measured in uranium-free phases of iron meteorites, to its compositions at the time these lead ores separated from their mantle reservoirs. These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent. To be precise, this age represents the last time that lead isotopes were homogeneous througout the inner Solar System and the time that lead and uranium was incorporated into the solid bodies of the Solar System.

The main problem here is all the assumptions that are being made.  And here they are saying that they prefer an assumptive hypothetical over their actual measurement capability - why?  And that fre rocks they have  that don't originate on earth are more 'accurate' than the billions of rocks here on earth.  Why is that?  If radiometric dating of earth rocks is so spectacularly accurate?

Lets put that into some context.  For most rocks, no one was there to watch them form.  So the assumptions have to be made.  But what happens when you date rocks that you DO KNOW when they were formed (such as rocks from recent volcanic activity).

I am sure you guys are aware of the ICR tests done on the Mt. Saint Helens lava dome.

Here is a snippet of what AiG had to say about it:

How radioactive ‘dating’ really works
Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks—those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill. Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’

The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon).2 This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years.1 In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left.

Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption—a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 have leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helens lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986.

The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.


The table shows the Whole Rock, and 4 elements of the rock.  The ages range from (in millions of years) 0.34, 0.35, 0.9, 1.7, and 2.8 for the differnt parts of THE SAME ROCK.  

Perhaps this is why scientists from USGS would rather test rocks that are not native to Earth, and then assume that the earth is the same age as 'those' rocks.

Moreover, as we have all agreed, there are assumptions that must be made in every radiometric dating method.  

The Geological community agrees - From Elaine G. Kennedy in Geoscience Reports, Spring 1997, No. 22, p.8

     Contamination and fractionation issues are frankly acknowledged by the geologic community.2 For example, if a magma chamber does not have homogeneously mixed isotopes, lighter daughter products could accumulate in the upper portion of the chamber. If this occurs, initial volcanic eruptions would have a preponderance of daughter products relative to the parent isotopes. Such a distribution would give the appearance of age. As the magma chamber is depleted in daughter products, subsequent lava flows and ash beds would have younger dates.

2. G. Faure. 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY, 589p.


You guys keep touting the exacting accuracy of radiometric dating, yet that isn't what the geologic community thinks.  They realize and accept there are many holes, gaps, and inconsistencies in radiometric dating.

There have been others as well (not just Austin) such as Snelling who have had similar results of radiometic dates that date known lava rocks to be millions of years.

To see what you guys thought of all this, I went to TalkOrigins.org to see what they had to say.  It's a bunch of 'he MAY' have done this, or 'he MAY' have done that, or 'we don't know for sure if' he did this.  No hard evidence to speak of.  They criticise him for 'doing the radiometric dating himself', then follow that with comments on how he 'might' have tampered with the samples he gave to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA( a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory).  Well which is it?  Did he do it himself or did he give it to the lab?  Also, talkorigins also proceeds to try to dismiss the finding by saying that:

Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."

OOOOHHHH!  So in order for the radiometric dating to be valid, you have to know the approximate age of the rock your sampling?  This is a BLATENT example of the duplicitous nature of those who claim radiometric dating gives accurate dates.  If indeed, as creationists say, the earth is only 6000 years old that means ALL of the radiometric dates from that lab are COMPLETELY USELESS!  Yet, this is what passes as 'evidence' of an old earth... dates based on assumptions... based on measurments... based on assumptions... which ONLY work if the earth ISN'T young.  If the earth IS young, all that evidence is corrupt and therefore invalid - yet this is PRECISELY the evidence that is the basis for the old earth and evolutionary paradigms.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 3:08 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, as of yet, I still cannot find any sites that list the ratios of how many times multiple methods agree with each other, disagree, are thrown out, or are not reported.  

I find it odd that you guys will constantly say that all these dating methods ALWAYS agree with each other, when I have shown actual examples that this is not the case.  I have yet to see any data that shows they agree the majority of the time, or at all.  

So lets get some USGS data on that - how many times are rocks dated - how many original dates are accepted, how many first results are thrown out.  How many times are they cross-checked with other meathods... out of those, how often are they correct, how often do they differ.  How many times are dates ignored when they match the expected results.

Without this imperical evidence, how can you guys say such phrases as "they always agree"?

I would challenge you guys to find this informaton.

In fact, I would like to see some 'blind test comparrisons done'.  If you do not put an assumed date on a rock, how old do each of the methods date that same rock?

(Edited by Gup20 4/21/2004 at 4:21 PM).
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 4:19 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Too much garbage here.  First, Demon has posted excerpts from a web site (the same one you are trying to use to dismiss dating, I believe) stating that the oldest rocks on earh had been dated to approximately 3.8 billion years old.  Your question about why we don't find ocks dated at 4.5 BYO on earth is answered right in the quote you provided:
"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics."

Never mind the fact that meteorites dated at 4.5 BYO effectively destroy creationism accounts of the universe being created 6, 000 years ago.

OOOOHHHH!  So in order for the radiometric dating to be valid, you have to know the approximate age of the rock your sampling?  This is a BLATENT example of the duplicitous nature of those who claim radiometric dating gives accurate dates.  If indeed, as creationists say, the earth is only 6000 years old that means ALL of the radiometric dates from that lab are COMPLETELY USELESS!  Yet, this is what passes as 'evidence' of an old earth... dates based on assumptions... based on measurments... based on assumptions... which ONLY work if the earth ISN'T young.  If the earth IS young, all that evidence is corrupt and therefore invalid - yet this is PRECISELY the evidence that is the basis for the old earth and evolutionary paradigms.  

Are you really this dense?  As with any tool, if you use it properly, you get proper results.  This is like me whining because it takes me 50 whacks to pound a nail in with my screwdriver, while my carpenter friend can do it in two with his hammer!  Use a proper tool, get proper results!  Also:
Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admits. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old.) A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

from talk origins

Faulty sample+faulty tool=faulty dates.  Way to prove your point!  Now, tell me again how this is good science?



-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 4:25 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have yet to see any data that shows they agree the majority of the time, or at all.  
Matching dates

More

check the table near the bottom half mark

I would challenge you guys to find this informaton.

Challenge met, though I'm sure that AiG has a page you can parrot to try and explain it away, there's a couple to start you off.

Thought you'd like this as well, just to prove it's not the godless scientists spreading propoganda (like you'll read it anyways)
Christian perspective on geology

In fact, I would like to see some 'blind test comparrisons done'.  If you do not put an assumed date on a rock, how old do each of the methods date that same rock?

As I said, use the proper tool and you get the proper results.  What will the excuse be when the double blind results are concordant (which they won't be, since YEC's bugger up every test they do)?  What will the excuse be if it's proven?  Let me guess:  The satanic scientist cabal (S.S.C. from now on) will discover the lab doing the test and "pressure" (ie threaten horrendous torture on their families) if they don't hold to the party line.  Am I right?

(Edited by TQ 4/21/2004 at 6:20 PM).

(Edited by TQ 4/21/2004 at 8:53 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:17 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ -  

Your first link does absolutely nothing to defend the inconsistencies in radiometric dating.  It starts out by saying 'One of the main objections to radiometric dating is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless.   In fact, the claim is partially true.

It goes on to say " Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption of the constancy of decay".  

It also links to the TalkOrigins.org website which has this to say "There are many situations where radiometric dating is not possible, or where a dating attempt will be fraught with difficulty.  This is the inevitable nature of rocks that have experienced millions of years of history: not all of them will preserve their age of origin intact, not every rock will have appropriate chemistry and mineralogy, no sample is perfect, and there is no dating method that can effectively date rocks of any age or rock type.  For example, methods with very slow decay rates will be poor for extremely young rocks, and rocks that are low in potassium (K) will be inappropriate for K/Ar dating.  The real question is what happens when conditions are ideal, versus when they are marginal, because ideal samples should give the most reliable dates.  If there are good reasons to expect problems with a sample, it is hardly surprising if there are!  (emphasis added)

It should also be noted that (in that table) the results DIDN"T match each other!!  If you look at the ** you will see that the ages first given by the different radiometric types had different results, but those results were eventually thrown out and reworked until they got the dates to match.  This is a prime example of how evolutionists boulster their claim that their dates always match.  They simply throw out the ones that don't match, keep the ones that do match, and then say that they always matched (exactly was was done in this case), and that it's perfectly consistent.  

I found this interesting
K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years (such as Austin and Snelling have shown).

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that they used. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however, as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form, throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method.

There is also the so-called "isochron" method, which is a clever way to estimate the amount of daughter product present initially, so that one can then use rubidium-strontium dating and other methods to get reliable dates. Unfortunately, isochrons can also be caused by mixing processes that have nothing to do with true dates. One study indicated that nearly all published isochrons have properties suggesting that they result from mixings, and thus are not giving true dates. Another study indicated that nearly all isochrons published have poor statistical quality. Geologists often make excuses to reject isochrons, anyway, when they don't like the dates.

So I guess we'll have to discard the isochron method as a reliable dating method.


This guy, while not a geologist, does have multiple degrees (a Ph.D in computer science, and a B.S. in mathmatics).  His interpretations would certainly not be considered professional opinions, but he seems to have done his homework and brings up some good points.  

The Austin and Snelling studies do show an important concept.  If the earth is indeed 6000 years old, as creationists assert, then all these dating methods are essentially as blind and incorrect as Austin's example.  That lab took as an assumption that the rock was not just 10 years old.  This is the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTION made by EVERY SINGLE RADIOMETRIC FOSSIL DATING done that supports evolutionary timetable.  As do all radiometric dating methods, it starts with an assumption... that it's millions of years old... and then they test with only that assumption as a possibility.  Then they throw out the ones that don't match up and re-run it until they get the results they do want.

The 2nd link would be more interesting if they showed more than just the 'final data'.  For example, how many times each one was tested, retested, changed, manipulated before they got the answers they were looking for.  See this is the kind of data I asked Demon to find - how many times is the initial test of a rock the one that ends up being published?  Or is it that (as in the first example) it is simply thrown out an retested until they get the results they wanted.  

Same with link 3 - again, they used all these radiometric dating methods which assume millions of years, and assume lack of contamination (which we have seen is much easier to happen, and much harder to detect than you thought).

As far as that being the 'christian perspective' as you and I have already discussed, christians are just as free to believe in creationism or evolution.  It doesn't effect their heaven or hell going when they die.  Obviously, that group doesn't agree with the concept of a young earth - just as all christians are not creationists, and all scientists are not evolutonists.  

FYI, it looks like you may have forggotton to close a quote at the end of your post.  It's causing some goofiness with the thread.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:24 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your first link does absolutely nothing to defend the inconsistencies in radiometric dating.  It starts out by saying 'One of the main objections to radiometric dating is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless.   In fact, the claim is partially true.

It goes on to say " Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption of the constancy of decay".


And yet you fail to quote the rest of the web site....Here, let me do it for you...Radiodate

"Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated.  Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods.   In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods.  Creationists have seized upon these discoveries and held them forth as evidence that radiometric dating is inaccurate.  But is this the case?   Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption of the constancy of decay and each system has a different half-life (or length of time it takes for 1/2 of the radioactive parent to decay to a stable daughter).  In addition to variable half-lives, each mineral will 'close' at different temperatures (closure, is simply defined as the point where no daughter/parent is lost or gained*).   There are a number of different methods that geologists use to check for loss/gain and these are incorporated into most analyses (isochron methods, stepwise degassing etc).  If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another.  "

So you see that the problems you whine about are checked for and compensated for.
Modern spectrometers are much more sensitive than early models were, so we will see more prceise data.  Don't know how this supports your point...  And you made no comment on the last sentance, "  If radiometric decay rates are not constant and rocks behave as open systems, it would be the exception, rather than the rule, for ages to agree with one another.  "
You can't account for all the dates that concur, so you dismiss them out of hand because to admit that geology, physics and science in general are correct, your faith is destroyed.  

You say....
It also links to the TalkOrigins.org website which has this to say "There are many situations where radiometric dating is not possible, or where a dating attempt will be fraught with difficulty.  This is the inevitable nature of rocks that have experienced millions of years of history: not all of them will preserve their age of origin intact, not every rock will have appropriate chemistry and mineralogy, no sample is perfect, and there is no dating method that can effectively date rocks of any age or rock type.  For example, methods with very slow decay rates will be poor for extremely young rocks, and rocks that are low in potassium (K) will be inappropriate for K/Ar dating.  The real question is what happens when conditions are ideal, versus when they are marginal, because ideal samples should give the most reliable dates.  If there are good reasons to expect problems with a sample, it is hardly surprising if there are!  (emphasis added)

So what???!!!  We know that not every rock sample can be dated by a specific method, how does this disprove radiometric dating???
You add emphasis to something that is absolutely meaningless to your assertions and act like it is some major discovery!  This does not cast ANY doubt on radiometric dating!

It should also be noted that (in that table) the results DIDN"T match each other!!  If you look at the ** you will see that the ages first given by the different

Which table?!?  TQ is an excellent researcher and all the tables displayed on the websites he posted support the accuracy of radiometric dating!  Once again you demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension skills!  All the tables I looked at from TQ's 3 references all had dates that concur and demonstrate an extremely old earth!  Why do they concur?  If they were all flawed, they would not give the same dates!  You haven't been able to disprove this!

I found this interesting...                               blah blah blah....

Sorry, can't accept any information from an incredibly bias site like this!  They don't do real science so none of their data can be trusted.

The Austin and Snelling studies do show an important concept.  If the earth is indeed 6000 years old, as creationists assert, then all these dating methods are essentially as blind and incorrect as Austin's example.

Why, especially when other testing methods, not based on radioactive decay have all ready proven beyond a doubt that the earth can not possibly be young.  Again, radiometric dating only confirms what we all ready know.


That lab took as an assumption that the rock was not just 10 years old.  This is the EXACT SAME ASSUMPTION made by EVERY SINGLE RADIOMETRIC FOSSIL DATING done that supports evolutionary timetable.

Wrong!  The lab assumed that what they were told was true about the rock, obviously they were lied to.  From here:RadiodateII

"Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so."

So throw out all the results from Austin and Snelling!

The 2nd link would be more interesting if they showed more than just the 'final data'.  For example, how many times each one was tested, retested, changed, manipulated before they got the answers they were looking for.  See this is the kind of data I asked Demon to find - how many times is the initial test of a rock the one that ends up being published?  Or is it that (as in the first example) it is simply thrown out an retested until they get the results they wanted.

I see, you can't argue based on the facts so you manufacture problems.  The point is these dates match, radiometric dating has proved to be very accurate, all the experts agree with this and you have done nothing to cast any doubt on the procedure.  You still haven't told us how a flawed process can arrive at the same dates.  No you are the one making the unwarranted assumptions, ignoring information, misreading the data present to you.  And the assumption of constant decay rates?  Well according to the atomic theory, decay rates will be stable over billions of years.
Since we have been measuring these rates, for something like 100+ years, the rates have NOT changed and using radiotelescopes and looking at these decay rates in distant stars we know they have remained constant for at least 180,000 years.  So that assumption is made based on all the available evidence!  Now what evidence can you present that shows that these decay rates have changed?
Of course, you have no evidence to support your assumption!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:16 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your first link does absolutely nothing to defend the inconsistencies in radiometric dating.  It starts out by saying 'One of the main objections to radiometric dating is that radiometric ages do not agree with each other or that contamination renders ages meaningless.   In fact, the claim is partially true.

And it finishes by saying:
Early mass spectrometers were not as sensitive as machines today and the methods for separating, cleaning and analysis were less sophisticated.  Although ye-creationists like Snelling talk about contamination of isotopic systems as if it were a foreign concept to modern geology, most geochronologists routinely check for possible contamination using a variety of methods.   In addition, geologists recognized that rocks could be contaminated with excess daughter or parent or loss of parent/daughter that would also affect the age as determined by radiometric methods

So, geochronologists recognize where errors may come from, and they check for and can recognize such errors.  Meaning what precisely?  Nice attempt at quote mining though.

It goes on to say " Simply put each radiometric system is based on the assumption of the constancy of decay".  

Please, try and tell us that decay rates aren't constant.  

It also links to the TalkOrigins.org website which has this to say


What they are saying is that not every dating method is good for every type of sample.  Remember my little tool analogy from before?  Different elements have different half lives.  Which is why a 10 year old sample of lava submitted for dating shows such a high age!  The amount of daughter isotope present is so low that the results are invalid.  Not to mention it was a faulty sample to begin with, which I already showed you.

It should also be noted that (in that table) the results DIDN"T match each other!!  If you look at the ** you will see that the ages first given by the different radiometric types had different results, but those results were eventually thrown out and reworked until they got the dates to match.

They were not "reworked until they got the dates to match"
The original published ages on these samples were 539 +/- 14 Ma by Andersen and Taylor (1988). These whole rock carbonatite samples younger ages depends heavily upon two points from pyrochlore samples.  Dahlgren (1994) noted that the pyrochlores are metamictic and spongy suggesting U-Pb mobility.  The 573 +/- 60 Ma age is determined when the pyrochlore samples are removed from the analysis.  The original Rb-Sr age from Andersen and Sundvoll (1986) was 550 +/- 7 Ma using K-spar, nepheline, biotite and one whole rock phonolite sample.  Dahlgren (1994) notes that the biotite fracion from this phonolite are poorly preserved (see also Dahlgren, 1987) and therefore Dahlgren performed a regression without the biotites to obtain the reported age above.  Dahlgren (1994) notes the importance of examining each mineral used in a particular analysis in order to assure the most reliable age estimates

So, you point out the errors that can be made in dating, then you start crying foul when such errors are recognized and corrected for?  Do you even realize how simple you sound in these debates?

So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth.

Oh, can we perhaps have some studies proving that all the old dates in rocks are the result of this?  And please tell me why all the dating methods still give concordant dates!

1)there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the 2)time of the Flood and 3)shortly thereafter than there is today.

Nice.  Now, who was it that made assumptions?  One half of a sentence and we have 3 assumptions!

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years (such as Austin and Snelling have shown).

Once again, wrong tool, wrong procedures, wrong samples=wrong dates.

This guy, while not a geologist, does have multiple degrees (a Ph.D in computer science, and a B.S. in mathmatics).  

Oh, he's a computer programmer huh?  Well, we all know they're unreliable, right?  Wow, you must hate it when you're words come back to bite you on the ass, huh?

The whole bolded portion is once again a typical attack on dating, with no statistical evidence, research, or studies to back it up, and of course, no references, so I'll skip it.

For example, how many times each one was tested, retested, changed, manipulated before they got the answers they were looking for.

You know, with all this plotting going on, you think you'd have some evidence to back it up.  You don't, so stop with the assertions already.  If you have actual proof of wrong doing, present it.  Otherwise, shut your yap.

they used all these radiometric dating methods which assume millions of years, and assume lack of contamination
1. They don't "assume millions of years".  That is what is demonstrated by the dating!  They also don't "assume lack of contamination".  They are aware of possible contamination issues, and they can be caught.  

(which we have seen is much easier to happen, and much harder to detect than you thought).

Oh?  And where did you demonstrate this?  In your little post?  The one with no statistical evidence?  The one that provides no studies?  The one with no references to any studies that support the author's position?  Is that the one?
Do you ever have an original thought?  In the articles I presented (which you asked for) they explain, "here is where errors can be made.  We are aware of them, and they are easy to detect".   You then go on a rant about a conspiracy (again), denounce dating with no proof (again) and ignore 100 years of radiometric studies and calculations, putting it all of on conspiracies, lies and fraud.  You want examples of these practices, go back and read AiG.

Don't post again unless you have some actual statistical evidence.



(Edited by TQ 4/22/2004 at 12:35 PM).


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 9:27 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think this is pertinent, we don't even have to turn to radiometric dating to see the earth is far older than 6000 years,  from here:Nuclides

Listing of Persistent Nuclides by Half-Life
[ From Dalrymple (page 377), also Kenneth Miller (page 71)  ]

Nuclide Half-Life Found in Nature?  
50V 6.0 x 1015 yes  
144Nd 2.4 x 1015 yes  
174Hf 2.0 x 1015 yes  
192Pt 1.0 x 1015 yes  
115In 6.0 x 1014 yes  
152Gd 1.1 x 1014 yes  
123Te 1.2 x 1013 yes  
190Pt 6.9 x 1011 yes  
138La 1.12 x 1011 yes  
147Sm 1.06 x 1011 yes  
87Rb 4.88 x 1010 yes  
187Re 4.3 x 1010 yes  
176Lu 3.5 x 1010 yes  
232Th 1.40 x 1010 yes  
238U 4.47 x 109 yes  
40K 1.25 x 109 yes  
235U 7.04 x 108 yes  
244Pu 8.2 x 107 yes  
146Sm 7.0 x 107 no  
205Pb 3.0 x 107 no  
247Cm 1.6 x 107 no  
182Hf 9 x 106 no  
107Pd 7 x 106 no  
135Cs 3.0 x 106 no  
97Tc 2.6 x 106 no  
150Gd 2.1 x 106 no  
93Zr 1.5 x 106 no  
98Tc 1.5 x 106 no  
154Dy 1.0 x 106 no  

As seen above, every nuclide with a half-life less than 80 million years (8.0 x 107) is missing from our region of the solar system, and every nuclide with a half-life greater than 80 million years is present. That means the solar system is much older than 80 million years, since the shorter-lived nuclides have simply decayed themselves out of existence. Since a nuclide becomes undetectable after about 10 to 20 half-lives (Dalrymple, page 378), multiplying 80 million times 10 (or 20) gives us about 800 million years (or 1.6 billion years). The earth must be at least that old since these nuclides have disappeared from nature."

Just one more evidence for an old earth...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:51 PM on April 21, 2004 | IP
antievokid

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

creation and ancient high tech website check it out


-------
feel free to email me at paintxtreamer@yahoo.com

Travis
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 12:17 AM on July 11, 2004 | IP
C_Darwin_rulz

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[random] the only way to avoid hell is to believe in Christ.[random]

Here is all I have to say on the subject. If there is a hell, which I, a witch, don't believe in, do you think anybody at all who follows their own path or simply can't believe in Christ would be damned to hell? Well, then, see ya! too late for me. I guess I'm gonna be shaking hands with a fallen angel. Listen. I was once a catholic. It was this belief, more than anything, that pushed me away from christianity when I met a witch with an absolutley delightful personality. I thought right then: If this person is going to hell, then yahweh is a cruel god. So I am no longer a catholic. I am much happier now.

On the subject of evolution. All of you who believe in genesis literally should read Darwin's book: On the Origin of Species. You can even get it free, in ebook format. Read before you talk.


-------
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothosis. That means there is a **** of a lot of evidence.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 01:23 AM on April 11, 2005 | IP
Box of Fox

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol. Demon and Gup on the same thread. I'm in hell. Oh wait. It doesn't exist. Damnit. :--P
 


Posts: 85 | Posted: 11:44 PM on May 10, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:42 PM on April 10, 2004 :
Here is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about.  Here are the FACTS:

1) Mt. Everest is now a mountain
2) Mt. Everest wasn't always a mountain
3) Mt. Everest has marine fossils (suggesting that it was covered by water at one time)


Yet you ignore all other evidence because it doesn't suit you!  Mt. Everest is a mountain now, it began to form 50 million years ago.  We know this because of multiple lines of evidence, tectonic plate movement rates, paleomagnetism, fossil evidence, just to name a few.  So all evidence says the Himilayas formed 50 million years ago.  Geologists are taking all the facts into account, creationists are not.  Creationists interpretation of this event is clearly wrong.  Yes we know Mt. Everest was not always a mountain, we KNOW it began forming 50 million years ago.
You have decided the theory is correct .That is not scientific. We know we are right therefore the evidence has to support it. It the evidence did not support it the theory would not be correct. We know the theory is correct.
This is circulat reasoning.

Mt. everest has marine fossils on it, these marine fossils could NOT have been placed there by a massive flood, we don't see a mishmash of marine life that a giant flood would produce, we see fossils of a shallow sea floor ONLY.  Again, like most creationists, you pick and choose the data that at first glance seems to support your myth and ignore all the rest!  Your presupposition is demonstratably wrong, you have yet to show how proffesional geologists are in error!
Again you are thinking in a circle. How would you know what a giant flood would do since you have already decided there never was one.
There are "professional" geologist who believe there was a global flood so that statement is false.

From here, the United States Geological Survey:USGS

About 225 million years ago, India was a large island still situated off the Australian coast, and a vast ocean (called Tethys Sea) separated India from the Asian continent. When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward. By studying the history -- and ultimately the closing-- of the Tethys, scientists have reconstructed India's northward journey. About 80 million years ago, India was located roughly 6,400 km south of the Asian continent, moving northward at a rate of about 9 m a century. When India rammed into Asia about 40 to 50 million years ago, its northward advance slowed by about half. The collision and associated decrease in the rate of plate movement are interpreted to mark the beginning of the rapid uplift of the Himalayas."


All the facts line up, all the experts agree, the Himilaya mountains were too tall to be covered by water, Noah's flood is simply a myth, it never happened, at least, a flood that covered the entire world!

Again you think in a circular. You don't believe there was a flood and therefore the facts line up. you"know" the flood was a myth because 19th century geologist "knew" there was not flood. Therefore the "facts" line up. If the facts tdid not line up there could have been a flood. Therefore the facts line up.
One of the worlds leaders in plate techtonics believes there was. I was raised in the oil patch and know plenty of "professional" geologist that agree.
BTW What is an unprofessional geologist? One who does it just to annoy you?



You say as evidence against the flood that it only happened 6000 years ago when, according to evolution, everest was too tall.  So basically what you are sayhing is that according to evolution creation can't be       true.
that is what he says.

You're still laboring under a false premise.  Science doesn't say anything about  CREATION,
if God created thru natural means, science can neither confirm nor deny this and it doesn't.
As I've said numerous times, most Christians worldwide accept an old earth, no golbal flood and evolution.  What science does disprove, and disprove very effectively is CREATIONISM.
This is the falsified theory that the earth is young (10000 - 6000 years old), that there was a global flood and evolution does not take place.  

No again you have never bothered to read Darwin.
In the introduction to Origins he says special creation is a fallacy. Most Christians may believe in an old earth but not that God did not create us.
Your statement that evolution does not take place being part of the believe we werecreated in the image of God is false. Evolution means change. Animals change, they do not however change into fundamentally different animals.


First of all, radiometric dating lines up with all other dating methods, it concurs with ice core samples, lake varves, fossilized coral reef clocks, fossil tree ring dating, to name a few.
Second, let's see what some expert sources say about radiometric dating...

Again that is circular reasoning. Whenever they don't line up they are ignored. The same coal has been dated at 45ka with c-14 and 4.5 ma with pottasium agron. Guess which one was ignored? Coal often dates less than 15ka with radio carbon {c--14}

EarlhamCollege

"Since the middle of the twentieth century, radiometric dating techniques have helped geologists and archaeologists give certain samples a specific and concrete age. Before this and other 'absolute' dating methods, scientists could only determine the relative or chronological ages of samples. Thanks to the consistency of natural radioactive decay, science has found a measuring tool for seemingly unmeasurable amounts of time."

Here a deep thought . How did they create a calibration chart? Easy they used the date made up out of thin air by the 19th century geologist. They just made it up out of thin air.


From the USGS:
USGSI

" The potassium-argon method can be used on rocks as young as a few thousand years as well as on the oldest rocks known. Potassium is found in most rock-forming minerals, the half-life of its radioactive isotope potassium-40 is such that measurable quantities of argon (daughter) have accumulated in potassium-bearing minerals of nearly all ages, and the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes can be measured accurately, even in very small quantities. Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm the results."


Notice at the end it says "Where feasible, two or more methods of analysis are used on the same specimen of rock to confirm results."  Now how could 2 different radiometric dating techniques, on 2 diferent types of radioactive isotopes, both come up with the same wrong dates???  It just isn't conceivable!  Add to this the fact that many of these dates are checked with other non radioactive dating methods and the conclusion is inescapable, we live on a very (4.5 billion year) old earth.




Notice it says were feasible? This another example of circular reasoning. Pottasium argon gives millions of years dates to coal. Even though we "know" coal takes millions of years to forn c-14 always dates it less than 50k .
Therefore it is not feasible to date coal with c-14.
Brilliant logic.

Coal does not take millions of years to form and there is absolutely no reason to believe it did in the past. It probably took less than a week .

a) Coal formation.

Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150°C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.4

If a 'radiometric' date and a 'fossil' (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.


Long ago and far far away!



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:49 PM on June 2, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:49 PM on June 2, 2005 :

Again that is circular reasoning. Whenever they don't line up they are ignored.

Why don't you bring out some examples of this?

The same coal has been dated at 45ka with c-14 and 4.5 ma with pottasium agron. Guess which one was ignored? Coal often dates less than 15ka with radio carbon {c--14}

C-14 is formed when N-14 captures a neutron.  The ambient neutron flux in the earth's crust makes it essentially impossible to have a zero level of C-14 regardless of the age of a sample.  That's why you have to use a technique that is not sensitive to that particular error mechanism.  Nothing circular about this, just recognizing limits of accuracy.



(Edited by Apoapsis 6/3/2005 at 09:11 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:10 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from TQ at 1:39 PM on April 11, 2004 :

I have no problem with you having faith in the bible.  It's quite another to tell me to repent or go to hell.  I have faith that god isn't going to punish me for wanting to explore the world and learn as much as I can.  If he didn't want people to reach the results, why provide the evidence pointing in that direction?

He is not telling you to go to hell , he is telling you are and you don't have to. Even if you do not believe it is true would it be the right thing for him to do if he believes it and does not tell you?
Kind of reminds me of this story.

Two monks are holding up sins that say :
Sign one-Turn around !
Sign two-The end is near!

After distressing over the screams and the sound of breaking glass one monk turns to the other and says :do you think we just paint the signs to say:
Bridge is Out!

Al least they tried to warn everyone.


In short, believe creationism if you want.  But do not claim that there is scientific evidence to back you up, when all you've presented so far for evidence is the ignoring of facts which don't agree with you


This is  a fallacious argument. Facts don't agree with anyone and they don't speak for themselves.
They must be interpreted.

It is the interpretation that He disagrees with , the fact are after all , facts.

There is always more than I way to interpret data.
For example:

Data shows that ghost only talk to crazy people.

Some people see this a s proof that ghost don't exist.

Some people see it as proof the do but only reveal themselves to crazy people.

Depends on your world view.

The Missoula flood was once a creationist myth, now it is science.
The Icelandic Mega Floods were once a Nordic Myth and now they are science.
Science is often wrong. To say facts agree is wrong.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 2:46 PM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You have decided the theory is correct .That is not scientific. We know we are right therefore the evidence has to support it. It the evidence did not support it the theory would not be correct. We know the theory is correct.
This is circulat reasoning.


Except that is not what is happening.  The upward thrust of the mountain was measured and it's a simple matter of math to calculate how many millions of years ago it was a sea bottom.  Radiometric dating only verifies this, the date obtained from calculating back using plate movement rates matches the dates obtained by different radiometric techniques.  And what other evidence do we have, besides marine life form fossils, that lets us know it was a sea bottom?  Why, the top of Mt. Everest is made of limestone, and limestone only forms from sea water.   And how do we know that a flood couldn't have deposited the marine fossils?  Not enough water on the earth to flood all the land.  If Mt. Everest had been covered by the flood, most of the earth's atmosphere would have been pushed off into space, it wasn't.  Mt. Everest is made up of limestone layered over precambrian gneiss, a massive year long flood could not possibly produce enough limestone to cover Everest.
So no, it's not presuppositions that lead us the conclusion that Everest was never submerged in a world wide flood, it's a confluence of all the evidence, each piece of evidence confirming and supporting each other.
No circular reasoning involved.

Again you are thinking in a circle. How would you know what a giant flood would do since you have already decided there never was one.

And what you don't understand is that a global flood was the accepted theory at one time in history.  An examination of the evidence falsified the theory.  Again, no circularity.  Everyone believed in a world wide flood, but examining the earth more closely forced them to falsify the theory.

There are "professional" geologist who believe there was a global flood so that statement is false.

Name one and present their evidence.  And please note, scientists don't "believe" in theories, they accept or reject them based on the evidence.  From here:
Flood
"Just a few generations ago, though, the question of the Flood created whole decades of cultural flame wars. Geology won the argument and the Biblical literalists lost. The Flood could not have covered the whole world, it could not have laid down every sedimentary rock bed, and Noah could not have rescued every living species. The rocks put the lie to all that."

No matter what your so called "proffessional" geologists say, you and they can't get around the fact that there is not enough water on the earth to coover all the land.

Again you think in a circular. You don't believe there was a flood and therefore the facts line up

Not circular, all evidence falsifies a global flood, it's simply impossible, not circular.  All of geology agrees, a global flood is impoosible.

you"know" the flood was a myth because 19th century geologist "knew" there was not flood.

No, 19th century geologists saw evidence that falsified the flood, now it has been confirmed by modern science.  You keep avoiding posting your evidence, what evidence do you have for a global flood????

If the facts tdid not line up there could have been a flood.

If the facts DID line up, there could have been a flood, but they DON'T line up, a global flood is impossible.

One of the worlds leaders in plate techtonics believes there was. I was raised in the oil patch and know plenty of "professional" geologist that agree.

Who?  You don't mention any names here, and no petrogeologist believes in a world wide flood.  So name names or don't make the claim.

No again you have never bothered to read Darwin.
In the introduction to Origins he says special creation is a fallacy. Most Christians may believe in an old earth but not that God did not create us.


Here's a link to the introduction of "Origin of the Species", nowhere in the introduction does Darwin say that God didn't create us!
Origins

Your statement that evolution does not take place being part of the believe we werecreated in the image of God is false. Evolution means change. Animals change, they do not however change into fundamentally different animals.

Yes they do, the evidence is clear.  I don't understand your first statement, but most Christians accept evolution, that rganisms change into fundamentally different organisms.
I was raised christain, both my parents were, I never met anyone that didn't accept evolution, who didn't believe noah as a fairy tale, until I came to these boards 4 or 5 years ago.  Most christians believe God created through natural means, including evoluiton.

Again that is circular reasoning. Whenever they don't line up they are ignored.

Let's see evidence of this.  I've never heard of any scientist just ignoring evidence, and I've certainly never heard of scientists ignoring radiometric dating results.  So no circular reasoning here.

The same coal has been dated at 45ka with c-14 and 4.5 ma with pottasium agron. Guess which one was ignored?

Give me specifics!  Because coal is invariably older than 50,000 years, the upper limit of C-14 dating, no one would be stupid enough to try and date coal with that method.  And potasium/argon dating is only used on igneous rocks, so it would NEVER be used to date coal.  Where did you get this ridiculous claim?

Here a deep thought . How did they create a calibration chart? Easy they used the date made up out of thin air by the 19th century geologist. They just made it up out of thin air.


What do 19th century geologists have to do with radiodating???  I don't think you understand how radiometric dating works,
from here:
Radiodating
"Rocks are made up of many individual crystals, and each crystal is usually made up of at least several different chemical elements such as iron, magnesium, silicon, etc. Most of the elements in nature are stable and do not change. However, some elements are not completely stable in their natural state. Some of the atoms eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms."

It's a simple matter of math, count the number of parent atoms compared to the number of daugther atoms.  No circularity, simple math.
How is radiometric dating calibrted?  Compare the dates against other dating methods, compare the dates obtained from dating different isotopes in the same sample.  If both isotopes give the same date range, they are verified.  How can 2 different isotopes, that have 2 different decay rates, both be wrong and still give the same date range??  Samples that are dated are typically dated by 2 or more different methods.  Radiometric dates are also calibrated against non radiometric methods, like ice cores, lake varves, dendochronology.  Why do the dates produced by these different methods agree?

Notice it says were feasible? This another example of circular reasoning. Pottasium argon gives millions of years dates to coal.

Your example is flawed because any geochronologist knows that coal is never dated by potasium/argon method, which is exclusively used on igneous rocks.

Even though we "know" coal takes millions of years to forn c-14 always dates it less than 50k .

Coal is never dated by C-14 because it is beyond the method's upper limit.  This is another erroneous example.

Coal does not take millions of years to form and there is absolutely no reason to believe it did in the past. It probably took less than a week .

Hahahahaaaa!!!  You're not serious! From here:
Coal
"As the peat is buried deeper and deeper, the temperature gradually
rises. There is no oxygen input now and all biological activity has
stopped. Oxygen continues to be lost and aromatic carbon increases
even more. There are all sorts of other reactions that the organic
material is undergoing. The details are still not clear. Condensation
reactions, as well as depolymerizations, are occurring. By the way,
the temperature is not very hot. It probably doesn't get any higher
than 150 C. But it cooks for millions of years. Then the land begins
rising, erosion removes the upper layers. Man comes along and
finds that nature has just baked a coal and taken it out of the oven."

Cooks for millions of years...
And this is directly from Argonne National Laboratory's web site!

From here: CoalII
"Coal originally formed from ancient plants that died, decomposed, and were buried under layers of sediment during the Carboniferous Period, about 360 million to 290 million years ago. As more and more layers of sediment formed over this decomposed plant material, the overburden exerted increasing heat and weight on the organic matter. Over millions of years, these physical conditions caused coal to form from the carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and inorganic mineral compounds in the plant matter."

Real geologists know it takes millions of years for coal to form...

If a 'radiometric' date and a 'fossil' (evolutionary) date conflict, the radiometric date is always discarded.

What does this mean???  Fossils can't be dated directly, they are dated by radiodating the strata they are found in.  So please provide evidence that any radiometric dates are just thrown out indiscriminately.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:10 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question about evolution. Wen you find fossils, u say that they are 65 million years old because the rock layer is 65 million years old. Just because the rock is 65 million years old doesn't mean that the fossils are also 65 million years old.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:52 AM on August 9, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have a question about evolution. Wen you find fossils, u say that they are 65 million years old because the rock layer is 65 million years old. Just because the rock is 65 million years old doesn't mean that the fossils are also 65 million years old.

Why not?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:36 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mean that the only thing 65 million years old is the rock, just because that the fossils in the 65 million year old rock doesn't mean that the fossil is 65 million years old just the rock is 65 million years old.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:40 AM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how would a much younger fossil get inside a 65 millin year old rock????  Come on, think these things through!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:40 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It could get buried in 65 million year old roc by a landslide.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:29 PM on August 10, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It could get buried in 65 million year old roc by a landslide.

And geologists and paleontologists aren't stupid, they can recognize the type of rock a fossil is contained in.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:00 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyway, u dony know for sure that the rock is 65 million years old



-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 11:10 AM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anyway, u dony know for sure that the rock is 65 million years old

Yes we do, radiometric dating is that accurate and you have been unable to falsify this.  You haven't been able to show us that radiometric dating is flawed.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:55 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they used it on a living clam and the result was a 10 000 year old living clam


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 9:14 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they used it on a living clam and the result was a 10 000 year old living clam


Source?

I'm skeptical for several reasons. First is that a clam lives in water. Carbon-dating does not work in water . I'm going to go off on a limb and suppose your source is Kent Hovind, because that moron loves to brag about corpses and life forms found in water that produce strange carbon-dating results. Hm, go figure.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:21 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they took the clam out of the water first and no Kent Hovind is NOT my source


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 9:39 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they took the clam out of the water first and no Kent Hovind is NOT my source

You can't date shells because they can absord calcium from the water they live in that can throw off the date.  Real scientists know this, so they don't date clam shells with carbon dating methods.  The question is why didn't you know this and why are you still making this claim when it is obviously false.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:48 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they use carbon dating to date fossilized aquatic creatures.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:20 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

they use carbon dating to date fossilized aquatic creatures.

Not on shells.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:22 PM on August 11, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.