Summations Only

Dating methods do not depend on any assumptions other than that there is a real world we can explore with our senses.Formally, all of our science and experiences are unprovable, even yours. There are some things which are so firmly established that they are called facts. For example, the age of life and the Earth.Your hysterical and unfounded evidence-free rants do not affect that.

You haven't provided evidence of how anything happened. Just unsupported assertions of what must have happened assuming that your impossible fludde actually happened.

Why do you waste people's time with such meaningless noise?

You're not paying attention. As expected. Quoting Message 1741:

quote:

---

Wrong. You have no clue about the wide range of independent dating methods that destroy your fantasy.

​

First, "radiometric dating" does not mean a dating method. It refers to a wide variety of inpendent methods based on different and independent processes so fundamental to the operation of the Universe that any change in them would have gigantic Univrese-wide effects. The near-perfect agreement between these different and independent methods (your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise notwithstanding) is solid evidence of their accuracy to anyone who knows enough to evaluate it.

​

In non-radiometric methods, thermoluminescence dating goes to 500,000 years. Various effects of cyclic astronomical processes such as Milankovitch cycles easily extend to 25-50 million years with progress on extending that continuing. Heliosesmology (sun quakes) go back to the origin of the a Solar system and yield an age of 4,570,000,000 years. Lake varves easily go back to 90,000 years (lake Suigetsu). Ice cores go to 160,000 years. Coral, stalactite, stalagmite growth rings. The list goes on and on.

---

Note especially the bolded part.

Message 1741

By definition order is not random. There is order therefore it is not random.

Order is order. You've admitted there is order. You claim to disagree only with the mainstream interpretation. Sure looks like a lie from here.Do you accept that there is order, or do you not?You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. There is order. There is no way that is the result of a fludde. We understand the properties of water and gravity completely. They don't sort in the manner we see, whether what's sorted is rock particles, fossils, or radioactive isotopes.Denial is your only recourse. You have no evidence or explanation. Your ridiculous scenarios are neither.

Which, of course, is not what we see.We know water and gravity. there is no magical sorting method in this universe.

You don't get to grade your own paper.Your "arguments" consist of endless repetition of a few ludicrous and trivially false claims based on ignoring the vast swathes of evidence that contradict your fantasy.E.G. We see precursors to future rock layers being laid down in the Sahara, the sea floor, river deltas, and many other places. We see such precursors turning into rock in drill cores. Repeating your risible claim that those processes are not happening, without any attempt to support that claim, is fruitless.Tell us WHY those examples don't count.You won't.You can't.Your claim is trivially false no matter how many times you repeat it without support. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I nailed it.You can't support it.What is it about the scale, shape and location that is wrong?Reality isn't wrong. It just is. The Sahara could turn into another Coconino, complete with burrows and tracks. The seafloor could become another Bright Angel Shale. Every layer in the stack is the result of a process we see today and vice versa

Yep, I called it perfectly. You have no reason for rejecting our examples of layers being created today. Other than your peculiar fallible interpretation of the Bible, of course. No reference to the real world or evidence whatsoever.Fill in the blanks:I say that the examples are in the wrong location because____________________I say that the examples are in the wrong time because____________________I say that the examples are the wrong shape because____________________I say that the examples are the wrong scale because____________________

You have presented no evidence. Assertions are not evidence. But assertions are all you got.What evidence leads you to reject our examples of sedimentary layers being laid down today?You can't name any. Because there is no evidence pointing toward that assertion.

"Obvious facts" means "no evidence or argument". You only declare what you believe. Over and over and over and over again.

In your fantasy there is no environment as layers are deposited. In mainstream science there is.The obvious signs of habitation are a big problem for you. You have to Invent more un-evidenced bushwah to account for them. Which leads to more problems. Every "solution" you invent piles more problems on your house of cards.

I was speaking of the evidence for habitation, not fossils. Tracks of animals from spiders to basosarus. Burrows. Paleosols. Multiple mature forests on top of each other.No, they couldn't rush in fast enough as your ridiculous and un-evidenced waves came and went. No, they could not be transported without destruction.