Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

So, you NEVER throw out a theory. You just keep reexamining them? Yes, and you are rejecting radiometric ages, among other facts. Can you tell us what facts we are ignoring? I'm wondering what your qualifications are to judge.I think we are pretty much done here, Helge. You don't seem to respect us, or scientists in general, so really there is no point in continuing this discussion. We have been very patient with you but it is clear that you are not here to debate, discuss or learn. This has been one huge exercise in projection. At this point, I believe are are just enabling you.

I wrote can, not does!"Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old." Please document.http://www.s8int.com/baddating.htmlHere is more at the same adress:"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9) For the first, I have answered this question before. But I can tell ypu that I used old maps when I plot these exact lokations into my existing maps. These locatison, everyone of them, do you find on this page, and you can controll them if you like: http://www.aspevik.net/extra.htm I didn`t lived in the Ediacaran periode at all, so anyybody else most have digg down these animals on these exsact locations who fits perfect into my map. These ar exact locations and there isn`t any other way I can change my map. The landmass was clustered around the Earth near Equator. These fossils tell us that.Tell me, nearly all of 32 locations end up in the edge of a circle whith the northpole in the middle, what that tells you and what is the mathematical change for that when you see all these locations ar spread over the whole world today? There isn`t possible that things like this could have happend with a coincidence. No way at all!These fact dont`t fits into you theory, and therefore you don`t like this at all. But these locations are facts, just look on my page.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

A brief lesson in theory:A scientific theory is the current best explanation for a given set of data. Here are a couple of definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)

​

A further note: there generally is only one theory at a time covering a given set of facts. In areas not covered by a theory you might have two or more competing hypotheses. Hypotheses arise all the time to challenge or supplement a theory; they are tested and either discarded or incorporated into the theory. Or, in rare cases, they replace the existing theory, becoming the new theory.Creationism is not a scientific theory. It is not arrived at by following the scientific method. It is a religious belief.Now facts can't be ignored. A powerful theory must account for all relevant facts, and must make successful predictions. I have looked at a lot of creationist writings regarding radiocarbon dating. I bet none of those folks doing the writing have ever done a radiocarbon date! (I have collected and submitted nearly 600 dates over a 30+ year span.) The nonsense they come up with to make the dates fit their young earth belief is amazing! One fellow even calibrates the radiocarbon dates using some effect caused by Noah's flood--itself a mythical event. These folks are either deliberately ignorant or dishonest. Actually if a creationist came up with good evidence for something it would be listened to. They have yet to do so. Instead they spout absolute nonsense and wonder why they are not welcomed into scientific circles. I have looked at a lot of the interpretations creationists come up with. When authors with no scientific training and a zealous belief in one or another religion start lecturing me on areas I am quite familiar with, after nearly 40 years of study and research, I am not easily impressed. I have found that they are not doing science: they are preaching, and those who don't know the field as well as I do, and who don't see all the errors, might actually believe those folks! That's dishonest.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I've communicated with that author, and he sent me a copy of the article. The quote most often used by creationists is a mix of text from the beginning and the end of the article, many pages apart. That ellipsis (...) represents dozens of pages that have been omitted.And he was describing dating results he had been seeing in one particular area of Canada over 30 years ago. Modern dating techniques have taken care of the problem he was describing.He was a little surprised that he was famous and widely-quoted in creationist circles.And, as usual, creationists don't bother to check into the actual details of what an author is saying. After some creationist manufactures it, these quotes take on a life of their own as creationists just keep repeating the same quote over and over, apparently not caring whether it is accurate. You seem to have fallen into the same trap.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

that is not what I say at all. When we work with a theory there is importen to get so mutch information as it is possibly to get. When this is done, then you comapare two arguments and throw out the weakest of them out from an objective standing. The geologist isn\t objective at all. They refuse everything the cretionist say of principle, without examining any of the contents of their work. That is the wrong way to work on a theory.For me it doesn`t matter if they are creationist or geologist, bacause I can think for myself and consider the facts from both sides, as long as there is solid and objective documentation for their viewpoints. The worst thing we can do, that is to take part with one of these groups and work further on that. Then I know the result will be wrong, and that isn`t something I am interested in!I think this is the reason why the geologists and the creationist never find their answer to anything. They can`t be objective at the sciense tells us to be. [qs]I'm wondering what your qualifications are to judge./qsI read in an article from the University here in Norway how they worked with theory questions to find the best answer. This way was the way they do things on. But it is still allowed to use our head as well, too.We fits facts into the models when we cant be objective. Therefore it is importen to be objectiv all the way and not rule out any possibilities without having a good look at this first.

The point is, there is an disagreement about the measurements are correct or not correct and therefore I say that the measurements actually could be wrong, too. I didn`t say they was wrong.I can`t so mutch about this topic, so I have to read the BOTH side of the sientist argumentation. Therefore I wrote the word "can" because I haven`t take a closer look at BOTH sides of argumentations yet. To find out whats right, I need to read about what scientist says about "for and against" these dating methods and I can`t only just select the side so most people do without looking at the issues.This isn`t, after all, a football team this is about.

You do not understand the nature of age dating. There are various sources of errors in radiometric dating, including instrumental, methodological, and with the sample media itself. That's why all age-dating results are important to the geologist, regardless if they confirm any expected age dates or not. Even the outliers tell us something. Therefore, no data are thrown out despite what the critics say.The geoscience community from around the world accepts radiometric age dating. The only people who do not, are those whose own research is not supported by the age dating methods.

Ok, if you say so. I meant these articles came from from the scientists who actually work on this subject, that is told in these articles over here, and you tell me they not comes from people who don`t work with age-dating. Strange!

The only link I saw was one by YOUNG EARTH proponents whose objective it is to discredit age-dating methods because it contradicts and invalidates their theory of a 6,000 year old earth. They are kooks.You are better off reading mainstream, peer-reviewed technical papers or books on the subject.

Ok, I see. But I read something else. But I like to read more about this subjekt, but to me is importen to see all things from many sides, because I feel that is the way to get a objective opinion about things to get my own meaning about this subject.But, I think this is very intresting anyway and I understand the way you see this. Have no problem with that at all.

quote:

---

"Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old."

​

http://www.s8int.com/baddating.html

​

Here is more at the same adress:

​

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9)

---

So they carbon dated a limestone? That's silly and it completely discredits your source. Radiocarbon datin is based on atmospheric carbon isotope partitioning.Sorry, Helge, but this puts your credibility even deeper in the hole.If you can't come up with something compelling I will not respond in the future.You have wasted enough of my time chasing down strawmen.

Thats ok :-). I got so mutch new information on my mail here, and i prefer to start to work at this stuff now.Thanks for your time and thanks for the discussion.

The geologist`s theory today. Here is one another animation: Pangea VRMy theory: You finde this animation on my page: http://www.aspevik.net/animation.htmEdited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

Have you ever looked into Neal Adams work? He's been studying this area for a long time and has a great many videos illustrating his theories.--Percy

I am impressed over the grafical work. I don`t think I would pay to read his stuff, but this video on the startpage are interesting! I have seen this too :http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.htmlhttp://www.continuitystudios.net/pangea.htmlhttp://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.htmlhttp://continuitystudios.net/dinosaur.htmlhttp://www.nealadams.com/PhysicsOfGrow.htmlhttp://www.itslikecool.com/primehttp://www.itslikecool.com/dinosaur.html