Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 155 (8105 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-02-2014 2:33 AM
141 online now:
edge, Faith, hooah212002, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 136 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,784 Year: 19,625/28,606 Month: 122/2,774 Week: 538/563 Day: 7/115 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 58 of 136 (619221)
06-09-2011 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by frako
06-09-2011 6:19 AM


Re: Genesis...
frako writes:

Dang!!!
Never thought this possible though before you jump to it has to be young and the tones of evidence that shows the earth is old is wrong. It would be better to provide a theory that accounts for all of the evidence.
My best guess is that some kind of process prevented the soft tissue from degrading during fosilization.
p.s. sorry for calling you a liar usually creos spout lies about stuff like this.

If you read the actual articles, you would realize that what the creationists quote, is completely misleading (I don’t know whether they lie deliberately or not, but they certainly are not telling the truth). Dr. Schweitzer and co-workers were just the first persons to treat dinosaur fossils this way. Dissolve them in weak acids.

An example comes from an article written by the actual researchers, Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer, and John R Horner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/
This is the first part of the abstract:

ncbi writes:

Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia.

Please notice that these soft tissues and microstructures were represented in fragments of demineralized bone. They dissolved the minerals.

It could also happen in other specimens, as is indicated by this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...ntists-recover-t-rex-soft-tissue

Quote from this article:

msnbc writes:

John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen," but probably is not unique. Other researchers might find similarly preserved soft tissues if they split open the bones in their collections, said Horner, a co-author of the paper.


What this article means is that, if researchers are willing to basically destroy their fossils, they would get a lot of similar features. Researchers are not normally willing to destroy their fossils, therfore it hasn't been done before.

Then , the part where creationists really loose the plot. We’ve found fossils double that age with real intact soft tissues, in amber. Years ago. The movie Jurassic Park was filmed because of the fact that we can find 130 million year old soft tissue in amber. We’ve known that intact, soft tissue from millions of years ago, can be found. We don’t even have to dissolve these in any chemical, they are there.

Creationists pretend that this ‘soft tissues in millions of year old rocks’ is a new discovery. Then they pretend that this indicates a young earth. They just keep on sprouting untruths. Nothing else.

In the end, how does soft tissue in fossils indicate a 'creation' less than 10 000 years ago, anyway?

Edited by Pressie, : Added the word "age" after "double that".

Edited by Pressie, : Fixed a few things, agian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by frako, posted 06-09-2011 6:19 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 59 of 136 (619224)
06-09-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 7:46 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

puprledawn, I have no clue how to put the pretty little quote in the nice blue box or I would have. Also, I was simply suggesting for anyone curious what to search for if they wanted to about the soft unfossilized Dino tissue. Lastly I wasnt sure I could just post the link here, I've been here a week.


No, they didn’t find soft, unfossilized Dino tissue at all. They demineralized the fossils. You weren’t telling the truth.

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, …

That’s certainly not true. From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

Wiki writes:

John Woodmorappe (born October 1954) is the pen name of Jan Peczkis,[1] an author who has published several articles and books with the creation science groups Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. His main works are Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study and the The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. He has also written several articles in creationist journals.


John Woodmorappe refers to Jan Peczkis as a science educator in one of his ‘articles’. He didn’t tell anybody that he referred to himself. Nobody knows what his qualifications are. We just know that he is a ‘science educator’. He certainly is not a geologist. He just calls himself a ‘science educator’.

None of the two of him is a geologist.

Chuck77 writes:

… after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers.

You would certainly expect that from a creationist who writes incognito, refers to his own articles under another name and has no verifiable qualifications. They tend to twist the truth a lot.

Chuck77 writes:

They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution.

Geologists actually do geology. They wouldn’t have a clue about the ‘paradigm of Evolution’, as the Theory of Evolution is actually a biological theory. Geologists don’t deal with biology. They deal with rocks.

Chuck77 writes:

Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

Maybe creationists would believe untruths like that. Geologists actually have to subject their work to peer-review. They disagree with you. And they are qualified geologists.

Edited by Pressie, : Edited the first sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Removed words typed twice


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2011 9:39 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 9:57 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:08 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 65 of 136 (619478)
06-10-2011 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
06-09-2011 10:08 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
NoNukes writes:

Pressie writes:

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, …

That’s certainly not true.

Answer's in Creation says that Peczkis has a master's degree in geology. Their website also contains a detailed rebuttal of Woodmorappe's claims related to Noah's Ark and radiometric dating.

quote:

John Woodmorappe is a young earth creation science author specializing in radiometric dating, and issues related to Noah's Ark and the Flood. John Woodmorappe is a pseudonym (a "pen name"). Many have criticized him for this, but I don't see a problem with it. He teaches high school science, and holds a Master's Degree in Geology.

Many of his arguments contain quotes out of context, scientific data out of context, and omissions of key points which would invalidate his arguments.


That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2011 10:08 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 5:36 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 66 of 136 (619479)
06-10-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by caffeine
06-09-2011 9:57 AM


Re: Being fair to "Jon Woodromappe"
caffeine writes:

Jan Peczkis claims to have an MA in Geology from Northeastern Illinois University,…..

What creationists claim to be true is usually miles removed from reality.

caffeine writes:

.. and there are two citations on Jstor for someone of that name from the same university, both in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:

Implications of Body-Mass Estimates for Dinosaurs
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 520-533

Trends in the Description of Extinct Genera among Mammalian Orders
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 6 (Nov., 1989), pp. 947-950

So, he claims to be a geologist, while he’s only published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology? Sounds very fishy to me. How does this qualify him to be a ‘specialist’ on dating methods?

caffeine writes:

He's also written well over a thousand book reviews on Amazon.com, assuming there are no shenanigans involved here.

Well, I guess anyone can write book reviews on Amazon.

caffeine writes:

Who he really is isn't so relevant here, though. The important point should be that "some person says radiometric dating is rubbish" is not a substantive argument. Let's hear some specific explanation of why it's so rubbish.

I agree.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by caffeine, posted 06-09-2011 9:57 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 70 of 136 (619505)
06-10-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques.

Then how do you rationalize your questioning of the thousands of geochronologists who actually do know exactly what they are doing?

Chuck77 writes:

I shouldn't have brought it up.

No, your creationists sources indoctrinated you to reject science. That's why you brought it up.

Chuck77 writes:

All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions.

That's why real geochronologists don't ever use carbon dating to date dinosaur fossils.

Chuck77 writes:

Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.

Chuck77, you should then start realizing that you can’t trust creationist ‘sources’. They lie. Rather use scientific sources. There's lots of other scientific techniques out there.

Chuck77 writes:

As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with.

Creationists have only one dating ‘technique’. They interperate their specific version of the holy books. Then they call it ‘science’. There is another thread on this website dealing with why creationists should get scientific dating techniques they don’t have at the moment. Before getting a scientific dating technique, they don't do geochronology.

Chuck77 writes:

I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's.

Why? They keep on lying to you. We pointed them at their lies. Don’t ever believe them without investigating their claims very thoroughly.

Chuck77 writes:

Particularly Laurence Tisdall.

Why do you do this at all? Even according to CreationWiki. http://creationwiki.org/Laurence_Tisdall
Creationwiki writes:


Laurence Tisdall holds a Bachelor's degree in General Agriculture from Macdonald College of McGill University and a Master of Science degree in micropropagation from the same university. He has published several scientific articles in peer reviewed journals, such as HortScience. Mr. Tisdall is presently a computer consultant.

He’s got absolutely no education in scientific dating techniques. Don’t just believe his ‘claims’, as he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Rather listen what those thousands of Geochronologists, who are actually specialists in geological dating, from all over the world, conclude after their research. That ‘s called being rational.

Chuck77 writes:

Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them.

Yes you can. It doesn’t matter how many times you just ignore or deny facts, fossils can be dated.

Chuck77 writes:

I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

Yes, you can date sedimentary rock. Sometimes it is very easy, other times it is more difficult, but you can date sedimentary rocks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 71 of 136 (619506)
06-10-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by cavediver
06-10-2011 5:36 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
cavediver writes:

That's interesting. Somebody with a masters in geology teaching high school science? That can only mean that he is way too useless as a geologist for any geological consultant, mining company or geological research organization to employ him. Simply put, he knows too little to be employed as a geologist.

And that is complete bullshit. I am more than a little more qualified in my discipline than Peczkis is in his, and I have taught at high-school level. Not all "teachers" teach simply because they can't do anything else. Not everyone is driven by pure bottom-line income.

Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.

I didn't mean to do it.

The reality of the situation Jan Peczkis is involved in, is that no real geological organization, whether it is in consulting, mining or reseach, would ever emply a reality denier. That's why he works for creationist organizations and works under a different name.

Institutions dealing with geological reality also have to survive in real life. They all have to survive reality.

Jan Peczkis does 'geological' work for 'creation scientists', simply because he doesn't have the knowledge to work for real geological enterprizes. He suppliments his income by trying to indoctrinate children. And it looks good when he can refer to himself as a 'science teacher' or 'geologist' in his 'articles', depending on the audience.

I also agree that a lot of teachers do their jobs for the love of teaching children. But they are real teachers and don't have to revert to lies to indoctrinate the faithful, too. They do really educate children. They do it all under their own names. Not some nom du plum to deceive the faithful.

Edited by Pressie, : Added two words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 5:36 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 6:20 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 73 of 136 (619512)
06-10-2011 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by cavediver
06-10-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
cavediver writes:

Sorry, cavediver, if I offended you.

It's not so much me, as the irritation I get at the typical "those that can, do; those that can't, teach" attitude and the damage it does to recruitment efforts aimed at employing serious professionals into teaching - I can give countless examples where this is perfectly applicable, but similar countless examples where it is not.

Anyway, apology accepted. Thank you.

Thanks for accepting my apologies.

I work as a full-time geologist at a geological research institute and I also teach part-time at what is called a previously disadvantaged school. I understand your frustration.

In my country teachers are paid a pittance. Usually teachers are paid in peanuts, that's why they get a lot of monkeys doing it.

Those teachers with a passion for teaching, however, who do it for the love of teaching and also for advancing humanity, do deserve all the respect we can give them. There's a lot of them.

I don't think that Jan Peczkis is one of them.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by cavediver, posted 06-10-2011 6:20 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 74 of 136 (619528)
06-10-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
Chuck77 writes:

Im sorry purpledawn (again). I'll just take my lumps. Im not a clue really about dating techniques. I shouldn't have brought it up. All i know is you can;t use carbon dating to date in the millions. Im not sure what method they use to date dino bones honestly. I admit it's not a area im familiar with.

As for the other question about how we would know the date of dino's other than the Bible I say let some Creationists date them and see what they come up with. I'll check to see if this has ever happened. Thanks for being patient with me. For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's. Particularly Laurence Tisdall. Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?

I was actually looking forward to a discussion on John Woodmorappe's 'research' on dating. I could actually learn something, as we do have a few experts on radiometric dating available on this forum. Are you sure you can't give me one of the examples from Woodmorappe's 'research' that we can discuss? Your statement was

Chuck77 writes:

Geologist John Woodmorappe, after analyzing 500 papers published on radioisotope dating, concluded that isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning, and story telling to fit the preconceived ideas of the researchers. They have no clue how old that sedimentary rock is and have a set of dates they will only use to fit the paradigm of Evolution. Dates are given as to what the researcher already believes is the date of the rock it was found in. Simple.

Can’t we even discuss one example where ‘isotope dating was rife with circular reasoning’? I would love to discuss any example of radiometric dating where Woodmorappe thought the dating methods were circular.

Chuck77, please, let’s discuss some examples of this. It seems like Woodmorappe would never publish his ‘findings’ in peer-reviewed papers, but only in religious tracts where the readers don’t have a clue what he is talking about. Also, he always does it where he knows that no Geochronologist can hear what he says and is able to criticize him. Please, let’s discuss it here. Just give us one example of 'circular reasoning' he writes about.

This is the time to put your money where your mouth is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 76 of 136 (619532)
06-10-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
06-10-2011 8:30 AM


JonF writes:

Although it's been pretty beaten to death already, a few items:

Woodmorappe did not look at 500 papers, he selected 350 dates from a lot fewer than 350 papers. He did not give any indication of how many dates he reviewed to select those 350, so a meaningful statistical analysis is impossible. His claim to have found "Over 300 serious discrepancies..." is laughable. I've read the original paper, and the majority of his "serious discrepancies" are not that at all, they're well-explained and well-understood. Steven H. Schimmrich wrote a critique at TalkOrigins, Geochronology kata John Woodmorappe, which is easily understood by the non-geologist and explains several of the "discrepancies". he concluded that Woodmarappe made many serious errors:


  • Selective quotations from the scientific literature
  • The presentation of data devoid of any geological context
  • Ignoring well-known limitations of dating methods
  • The use of a "shotgun" approach
  • The inclusion of obsolete data
  • The use of a small data set to reach sweeping conclusions
  • The lack of an appropriate audience

Glenn Morton plotted Woodmorrappe's dataset at Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look. measured age against expected age. There's a lot of scatter, as you'd expect when the criterion for data selection is the existence of scatter, but the trend is clear:

Chuck77, it would do you good to reflect on the reliability of your sources.

Woodmorappe's paper is not online, but I have a PDF of it if anyone wants to read it.


Please, I would love to have a look at his "paper". If the moderaters could provide my e-mail address to you, I certainly would appreciate it. Woodmorappe doesn't provide any information, he just lies to the creationists.

I wonder whether Woodmorappe included all those dates obtained from geologists, provided in peer-reviewed articles on South African rocks, from South African geologists, in his 'research'. There's way more than 500 of them. Geologists and articles. Try tens of thousands.

I bet that Woodmorappe ignored that research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 06-10-2011 8:30 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 06-10-2011 9:26 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 78 of 136 (619540)
06-10-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Admin
06-10-2011 9:26 AM


Admin writes:

Unless there are copyright concerns, if the PDF is email'd to Admin then I will post it here at the website.

Thank you. I would love to see it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Admin, posted 06-10-2011 9:26 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Admin, posted 06-11-2011 7:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 89 of 136 (619903)
06-13-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:33 AM


Chuck77 writes:

From Woodmorappe's paper:

Radiometric Violations of Superpositional and Cross-Cutting Relationships
Radiometric dates routinely violate common-sense relationships of field geology. It is almost self-evident that in a depositional situation the topmost beds must be at least slightly younger than those below them,…

When the beds are deposited, yes, that’s what normally happens. We do have exceptions to that, too.

After deformation, this is not common-sense at all. Occurrences like recumbent folds and overthrusts are very common. So, no, the youngest rocks will not necessarily be at the top. Just on this quote, every geologist in the world can determine that his ‘paper’ is ridiculously flawed and won’t ever be accepted by any real geologist.

Chuck77 writes:

Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever?

Yes, he doesn’t even know the basics of geology.

Chuck77 writes:

Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

It’s either a lie, or just complete ignorance. Seeing that Woodmorappe (aka Peczkis) claims to be a geologist, I think that it is a complete bald faced lie.

He ‘s trying to mislead the faithful on what sedimentary rocks actually are, how they are deposited and how they get altered by geological processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 90 of 136 (619917)
06-13-2011 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Chuck77
06-11-2011 7:33 AM


Chuck77 writes:

Well, I really just glanced at it but it does seem interesting. Pretty long read. He also gets into "Precambrian" rocks just after where I left off on the above comment. Is it everyones opinion that this paper has no merit whatsoever? Even with all the references and sources listed? Are you all saying that his entire paper is a complete bald faced lie?

It’s amazing how Woodmorappe can lie. That’s all he can do. He probably thinks that nobody can get hold of the ‘references’ he lists. Unfortunately for him, we can. I’ve got one of the references he vaguely provides to try and deceive people.
In Table 1 of his ‘article’ he has a list of a few ages ‘expected’ and what was found after dating. His table has 5 columns, headed by, Age Expected, Age Obtained, Method and material, Common or Formational Name and Locality and the last column, reference.

On page 109 he lists the Cape Granite Suite as: >400, 330 and 238 ± 30, 236PB/U238 and , 238PB/232, Cape granite/ Republic of South Africa, 152
His reference is numbered 152: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula,
South Africa. GC 29: 11 15-6.

Woodmorappe actually forgets that some people can get hold of his references. The real reference is: Allsopp, H. L. and P. Kolbe. 1965. Isotopic age determinations on the Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Geochimica et Codsmochimica Acta 1965, Vol. 29, pp.1115 to 1130. Pergamon Press Ltd.

I’ve got this paper in my hands. The abstract reads:

Allsop, et al writes:

Rb-Sr measurements on six total-rock samples and associated mineral fractions from the Cape granite are reported, together with K-Ar measurements on two biotites. The total rock-age of the granite is 553 ±8 m.y. and the mineral ages (both Rb-Sr and K-Ar) are essentially in agreement, but suggest that a mild metamorphisms has caused some daughter-product migration from biotites and K-Feldspars. The apparent age of a cross-cutting mass of apolgranite is 500 ± 15 m.y. The Rb-SR ‘isochron’ relating to five Samples of Malmesbury sediments is remarkably linear, and the related problem of inherited radiogenic Sr in clastic rocks is discussed. It is concluded that the age of the Malmesbury cannot greatly exceed the apparent age obtained from the isochron,: 595 ± 45 m.y. It is possible, though unproved, that the granite was formed by the remobilization of the sediments at depth.

In Woodmorappe’s Table 1 on page 109 , under the Cape Granite Suite:

1. Expected age (Woodmorappe lists >400). The expected age was around 500 million years, actually. All in the reference Woodmorappe provided.

2.Age obtained: Woodmorappe lists: 330 and 238 ± 30. He lies. Allsop et al got ages of 500± 15 million years.

3. Method and material: Cape granite: 553± 8 my. Aplogranite: 500 ±15 my. Malmesbury 595± 45 m.y. Woodmorappe lies.

4.Common or formational name: Cape Granite and intruded Malmesbury sediments (the simplistic names).

5. Reference already given. Woodmorappe lies. And lies. And lies. Don’t ever believe anything he says.

Some creationists wonder why scientists think all creationists lie. And lie. And lie some more. This 'paper' is a good example of why we know that creationists always lie.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : Removed a comma that altered the explanation and meaning of the sentence.

Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

Edited by Pressie, : Fixed mistakes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Chuck77, posted 06-11-2011 7:33 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2011 2:17 PM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 91 of 136 (619922)
06-13-2011 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Chuck77
06-12-2011 4:52 AM


aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Chuck77 writes:

If she had found evidence that she had in fact been right all along, surely she would have been the first to appreciate it.
Thanks for the info Dr Adequate. I never heard of her before and find this REALLY interesting. Are you SURE she was a TRUE YEC?

This sounds fishy, as well. Dr Schweitzer has been the person who initiated research on soft dinosaur tissue. You, Chuck77, brought it to the attention of people participating on this on this forum, but you’ve never heard about the researcher who discovered it? Weird.

Educated paleontologists on this forum have actually studied her research. All those examples were fossilized. The lesson is that specialists know about her research and about her.

Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Chuck77, posted 06-12-2011 4:52 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 3:30 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 101 of 136 (620061)
06-14-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Coragyps
06-13-2011 2:17 PM


Thanks. Coragyps!

It's always easy to debunk creationists, as they only have one method: deceiving by outright lying. They project their way of thinking on others, because they think that everyone is as ignorant (or plain stupid) as they are themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Coragyps, posted 06-13-2011 2:17 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:30 PM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 794
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 102 of 136 (620065)
06-14-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 3:03 PM


Mazzy, could you explain to us how the article you refered to is related to carbon dating?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mazzy, posted 06-13-2011 3:03 PM Mazzy has not yet responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014