Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-16-2014 5:57 PM
206 online now:
Aurelia, AZPaul3, Faith, frako, PaulK, subbie, Tangle (7 members, 199 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,416 Year: 9,257/28,606 Month: 947/2,455 Week: 257/428 Day: 58/92 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Flood = many coincidences
JonF
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 17 of 445 (490866)
12-09-2008 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
12-09-2008 3:12 AM


Re: The Flood... Again (sigh).
Dating IS iffy, different labs have given different dates... an example of such was in the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, where fossils of apelike animals attracted special attention because their finders claimed they were linked to humans.
First measurements of argon in the volcanic tuff in which the fossils were found showed an age of 1.75 million years. But later measurements at another qualified laboratory gave results a half million years younger. then the ages of other layers of tuff, above and below, were not consistent. Sometimes the upper layer had more argon than the one below it. But this is all wrong, geologically speaking—the upper layer had to be deposited after the lower and should have less argon.

You are very confused. At least put some effort into getting your claims coherent and the facts correct

You are referring to the KBS Tuff. It is a difficult-to-date formation comprised of grains from several sources. The original date was 2.6 million years, which excited Richard Leakey because a hominid fossil was found below (not in) the tuff; that would push Man's origin way back, a position he championed. But independent methods of dating (especially pig index fossils) showed that this was unlikely to be correct. So scientists investigated and eventually found a repeatable and verifiable method for separating the components of the tuff, dated them by multiple independent methods (some involving argon, some not) in different labs, and obtained consilient dates around 1.85 million years. All in all a triumph of the scientific method.

KBS Tuff dating

So if the results of radiometric dating are not consistent, then their is something wrong with the method and it cant be trusted.

99.999% of the results of radiometric dating are consistent with other results, both radiometric (based on different and independent isotope systems and methods) and non-radiometric. This is far better than, say, any medical test. Next time your doctor wants to carry out some test tell him/her no thanks; you require 100% consistency and no test provides that, therefore the test is useless.

Edited by JonF, : Add link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 12-09-2008 3:12 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 41 of 445 (491192)
12-12-2008 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
12-12-2008 12:28 PM


Re: The ocean basins = huge evidence.
You're just leaving subduction out of your little scenario.

Yup. Before he claims subduction is just made up, there's lots of evidence for subduction. I personally think seismic tomography is really cool. Here's a creoss-section image showint the subducting Tonga slab. I tmay not work unless you are signed in at Science Magazine: registration is free. From :


Click to enlarge

quote:
Figure 2. East-west vertical cross section of a P wave velocity image from 0- to 700-km depth along the line AB (1220-km length) in Fig. 3A. Red and blue colors denote slow and fast velocities, respectively. Solid triangles denote active volcanoes. CLSC denotes the location of the Central Lau Spreading Center and ELSC denotes the location of the Eastern Lau Spreading Center. Earthquakes within a 40-km width from the cross section are shown as white circles. The velocity perturbation scale is shown at the bottom

quote:
We used a tomography method (9) to determine the 3D P wave velocity structure in the Tonga-Fiji region (9, 10) (Figs. 2 and 3). To confirm that the major velocity features were adequately resolved by the inversion, we conducted checkerboard resolution tests (11) (Fig. 4). The checkerboard test with a grid spacing of 50 km indicates good resolution for the area in and around the subducting Tonga slab and along the main line of OBSs (Fig. 4, A and B). For the test with a grid spacing of 70 km, the resolution is good for all the areas discussed (Fig. 4, C and D). We also conducted a number of inversions and resolution tests by changing the grid spacing, the grid configuration, and the initial model (10). The results show that the velocity structure in the study area (Fig. 3) can be resolved with a resolution of 50 to 70 km. This resolution scale is better than the 100- to 200-km resolution obtained in previous studies (5).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 12-12-2008 12:28 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Architect-426, posted 12-12-2008 1:11 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 85 of 445 (491533)
12-17-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Architect-426
12-16-2008 2:19 PM


Re: Date of the flood
Fact is you cannot ‘date’ a rock, they don’t have clocks (even though scientists claim so). Furthermore, radiometric ‘dating’ is not possible on metamorphic rock as it is ‘contaminated’, and these rocks are where the fossilized remains of earlier life are contained.

I know this is OT, but ...

Fact is, you can date a rock and rocks do contain clocks (in a manner of speaking), your untenable assertion and appalling ignorance * notwithstanding. Feel free to start a topic and try to defend your position.

-----------

*Your second sentence contains two or three major factual errors, depending on exactly how you count them. E.g., although fossils are found in metamorphic rock, the vast majority of them are found in sedimentary rock. Bet you can't figure out the other one or two.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Architect-426, posted 12-16-2008 2:19 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 86 of 445 (491535)
12-17-2008 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rrhain
12-17-2008 2:16 AM


There's only enough water in the air to raise sea level by about one inch: About 3100 cubic miles.

Dollars to donuts our friend is one of those like buz, who thinks that you can stuff arbitrarily large amounts of water into the atmosphere with no inconvenient side effects such as destroying all life.

Even the Institute for Creation Research gave up on that one a long time ago. In SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES Vardiman and Bousselot concluded that if all factors were somehow magically optimized to maximize atmospheric water varpor content, perhaps as much as 2 meters worth of water could be held in the atmosphere without raising sea-level temperature and pressure to excessive levels.

Glenn Morton's The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea is a fascinating read… not that our friend will read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rrhain, posted 12-17-2008 2:16 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-17-2008 12:03 PM JonF has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 91 of 445 (491589)
12-17-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Catholic Scientist
12-17-2008 12:03 PM


Show me the donuts!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Catholic Scientist, posted 12-17-2008 12:03 PM Catholic Scientist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014