|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What point didn't I get? I'd like to know, but only in as few words as possible please.
abe: I doubt I didn't "get" it, I merely came up with a way what you were saying might not apply. So are you saying it would make no difference to your point to consider that the rock was just formed and still wet? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
There are some, if not most, YEC that believe only the "right" RM dates get reported. David Reed, who has written a book about the co-existence of dinosaurs and Man, states that 98% of dates are discarded. I guess Coyote is happy to know he spends about $30,000 for each date published! One thing I saw that readily gives the lie to this idea is a report on a core from Lynch's Crater in Queensland in which successive laboratory numbers are given for the C14 dates that increase linearly with depth of core - one more validation of RMD.
I wonder where they think is the central authority that dictates which dates are "right"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The "fountains of the deep" are not MY idea, they are the biblical description of something that occurred at the start of the Flood. I don't know what they were but I know some people think they were volcanoes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: Your corrections are all a bunch of ad hoc nonsense. What you said in Message 2285 was:
Faith in Message 2285 writes: In other words this article is identifying the Jurassic, a time period, with the Navajo sandstone, a rock, as if they were one and the same. Anyone want to try to rationalize this? What PaulK explained was that the article (Ancient Dunes Preserve Signs of Dinosaur-Shaking Earthquakes) identified the Navajo sandstone during the Jurassic with sand dunes. We know the Navajo Sandstone was sand dunes at one time because that fact is preserved in the strata itself. And we know it was from the Jurassic by radiometric dating and by the tracks of Jurassic dinosaurs. Dismissal of scientific evidence in favor of evidence-free religious positions is what's ad hoc.
There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists. Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock. Because why? Any area of net sedimentation, including one that was once on the surface inhabited by life, will become buried more and more deeply, eventually deeply enough to create enough pressure to lithify it. You believe this, we believe this. The only difference is that you strangely believe sedimentation that becomes strata can only happen during a flood, and that life only fleetingly inhabited sediments that later became rock while fleeing the flood.
I hope eventually this ridiculous imposition on the human mind is absolutely and totally debunked. If you're doing science then you should hope that science remains focused on understanding the universe by examining evidence. If you're doing religion, better confess your sins. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It's a ROCK in a STACK OF ROCKS, it's not a "time period." If there is evidence of an earthquake in those rocks it did not occur in that "time period" because there is NO Jurassic time period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Oh you probably believe your stuff, but I believe mine. More accurately, we seek scientific explanations based upon evidence, and you believe whatever you feel comfortable thinking the Bible tells you.
Some day yours will be exposed as ridiculous. What is ridiculous is believing the Bible is a science book.
I hope soon of course. Instead of hoping you should instead seek out evidence, gain an understanding of how reality actually works, and only then think through what the evidence actually means. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: It's ad hoc whether you say it or the article says it. Well now you're just flailing away with nonsense. If your criticisms are not ad hoc then tell us your evidence. Calling things ad hoc and ludicrous and such is not evidence.
All made up to fit the ridiculous "landscape" interpretation of what is only now a flat sandstone rock in most places, and a water-swirled sandstone formation elsewhere. Your criticisms are just as true of your flood scenario. For you the Navajo Sandstone was once a flood-deposited landscape upon which dinosaurs left tracks that was later buried and eventually lithified. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Not "on the spot" NOW, but still made up out of nothing because there is no justification at all for the "landscape" or time period interpretation of the rocks. You continue to object to views that you share yourself. We all believe the Navajo Sandstone was deposited during a certain period of time. The only difference is that you believe it was deposited during a short stretch of time around 4500 years ago, while we believe it was deposited during the Jurassic over a period of millions of years across its lateral extent.
They don't know when the rock was formed, it's all made up. NOTHING happened during the "Jurassic" period because there was no Jurassic period. We don't claim we "know when the rock was formed" but that our views about when it was formed are based upon evidence, as we strive for all our views. Your views are not based upon evidence but upon an odd interpretation of the first 9 chapters of Genesis. Your views are also not based upon a different interpretation of the evidence as you occasionally claim, because we've again and again shown your interpretations are at odds with the evidence, and even include denials of reality, such as whether sea floor is part of the geological column, or whether sediments are contributing to the geological column today.
If sand pipes indicate earthquakes they occurred after the whole geologic/stratigraphic column was laid down. But you have no evidence and are just making this up. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My views are based on observation of the physical world, including the view that there was no Jurassic time period or any other time period. The physical realities deducible from the the Geological Column say so, not Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... states that 98% of dates are discarded. Well, are they or aren't they? You don't say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There could never have been any kind of landscape where any layered rock formation now exists. Any identification of rock with time is ludicrous, including any identification with pre-rock "sand dunes" or anything else pre-rock. Because why? Any area of net sedimentation, including one that was once on the surface inhabited by life, will become buried more and more deeply, eventually deeply enough to create enough pressure to lithify it. Anything on the surface inhabited by life would have been lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments and gravel of all sizes and organic matter, and if buried would never turn into a flat slab of sedimentary rock and find itself neatly stacked among other such slabs of rock. Unless you believe in the Good Fairy who turns puppets into boys and could probably turn this lump of shapeless stuff into a slab of flat single-sediment rock if necessary. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
... states that 98% of dates are discarded. Well, are they or aren't they? You don't say. In my archaeological career I have submitted 713 radiocarbon dates, with four more going out this next week. I doubt if I have discarded more than a dozen, and that is only after submitting additional dates from that same provenience to see where the problem was. One example--we had a vertical stack of abalone shells and the bottom shell provided a date that seemed too young by some hundreds of years. So, years later using more modern laboratory techniques we submitted two samples from the same stack just above the one that didn't seem right. Both dates came in about 700 years older, and just 27 years apart. So we did discard a date but only when we had good reason to do so. And from that same site we now have a total of 13 dates, three of which are older than 4500 years. So dating science isn't as sloppy as creationists hope and imagine it is. Not knowing much about science and dating they are free to make up nonsense, which seems to come pretty natural.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined:
|
I said the Lynch Crater samples reported had sequential lab identifying numbers, showing they were the only ones tested. There were about 10 samples reported. If there were 500 tested to get the "right " results, lab numbers would have shown it.
If RMD was so unreliable that most dates were discarded, I think by now there would be articles in the YEC press from disillusioned researchers about how they cannot get consistent results. So far I have seen no worthwhile attempt by the main YEC organisations to explain the way the RMD is supported by tree rings, varves, seamounts, land and sea cores, consistency between methods, etc..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: You don't know how those formed either, but they look to me like they were formed by swirling water. You have no geological knowledge or skills that would enable you to recognize how they formed. You are just making up what you wish were true.
When the Flood receded, taking whatever sediments were above those formations, if there were any, leaving some unconsolidated sand exposed, I'd guess that the water did that to the sand that was there. When your guess becomes supported by evidence and informed by qualified judgment, you let us know. Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Anything on the surface inhabited by life would have been lumpy and irregular and composed of all kinds of mixed sediments and gravel of all sizes and organic matter, and if buried would never turn into a flat slab of sedimentary rock and find itself neatly stacked among other such slabs of rock.
Ask and you shall receive. Here is a strat column of the Lower Peninsula, taken from a Michigan State class.
Unless you believe in the Good Fairy who turns puppets into boys and could probably turn this lump of shapeless stuff into a slab of flat single-sediment rock if necessary.
No need. Strata do not have to conform to your definition. Just ask if you need an explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024