Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2017 9:55 PM
119 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,173 Year: 13,779/21,208 Month: 3,261/3,605 Week: 47/556 Day: 47/54 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5268
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 76 of 144 (590921)
11-10-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
11-10-2010 1:52 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths....?

Mr Huxley explained that for you in the link I gave in post #70. He wrote that in 1868. The short answer: because it is the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths.


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 1:52 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2054 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 77 of 144 (590927)
11-10-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Coragyps
11-10-2010 2:22 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Wet sand and subaqueous sand are not the same. Do the freakin' experiment!

The experiment is irrelevant, because it doesn't reproduce the conditions under which the sand dunes actually would have formed underwater. Sand waves are formed during large storms or amplified tides, for example, and unless your experiment reproduces these conditions, how can you claim it is representative of anything ?

Add on to that the fact that when we observe present-day sand waves, they can easily have an angle of 25degrees (with in some situation 30 degrees)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...65-3091.1967.tb01322.x/pdf

Coupled with the fact that sand dunes produce an angle of 34degrees, not 25, and I am befuddled by the fact you still cling on to any of this because of your unpublished back-yard experiment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Coragyps, posted 11-10-2010 2:22 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 11-10-2010 3:13 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 11-13-2010 12:21 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 78 of 144 (590928)
11-10-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
11-10-2010 1:52 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Creationist models have always had a gliciation period following the flood.

What dating methods did they use to determine the extent and timing of these glaciation periods? Or are they simply asserted to have happened without any evidence whatsoever?

A rate which can vary with changing conditions.

Can you please describe the conditions under which hundreds of feet of coccoliths can be formed in a single year? How does a flood produce enough little coccolithophorids to stack up hundreds of feet in a single year. Not only that, but how did these supposed raging flood waters calm themselves for the extent of time needed for these tiny little creatures to settle out with hardly any contamination from large conglomerate flood deposits?

Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe it needs millions of years to form in the first place.

You should be asking why it looks like the product of millions of years of deposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons for coming to this conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 1:52 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:23 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 79 of 144 (590931)
11-10-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by slevesque
11-10-2010 3:02 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Sand waves are formed during large storms or amplified tides, for example, and unless your experiment reproduces these conditions, how can you claim it is representative of anything ?

Do you find tracks from air breathing animals in these sand waves? Are the quartz particles in these sand waves frosted like they are in modern wind blown sand dunes? What is the sediment makeup of these sand waves compared to sand dunes, and how does each compare to the Cocconino sandstones?

More in general, what type of geologic formation would NOT be consistent with this supposed recent global flood? Can you describe any geologic formation that would inconsistent with flooding?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 3:02 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 3:24 PM Taq has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2054 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 80 of 144 (590933)
11-10-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
11-10-2010 3:13 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Make a new thread about it, or find an existing one so we can discuss it over there.

This is all off-topic here.

AbE. Just to make sure. There are answers to all these questions.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taq, posted 11-10-2010 3:13 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Taq, posted 11-10-2010 5:36 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 82 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-12-2010 5:22 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6461
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 81 of 144 (590943)
11-10-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by slevesque
11-10-2010 3:24 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Make a new thread about it, or find an existing one so we can discuss it over there.
This is all off-topic here.

I did have one post with on-topic comments.

You claim that post flood glaciation is part of the creationist model. So how do creationists date the extent and age of these glaciation events, or are they just asserted to have existed without any evidence as to the extent and age?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 3:24 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 263 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 82 of 144 (591248)
11-12-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by slevesque
11-10-2010 3:24 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Not to pile on, but how would a YEC dating technique of any kind take into account the change in the duration of the day as revealed in studying ancient corals?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by slevesque, posted 11-10-2010 3:24 PM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:30 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 144 (591267)
11-12-2010 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zubbbra25
10-18-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
Zubbbra25 writes:

My question is, wouldn't it be correct in assuming that the YEC position would indeed need new, independant dating techniques and if so, have any been modelled? or tested?

Hi Zub. A hearty welcome to EvC from a long time dyed in the wool ID Biblical (literalist) creationist.

Here's the deal. The reason I've been arguing for rejecting conventional dating methodology is that the earth and atmosphere was significantly different than post flood.

The implications of all preflood data in the Biblical record indicate a vapor canopy like atmosphere which was likely much larger, extending further into what is now space, the warmer close to earth layers of it effecting expansion into space, consisting a significant more volumn of H2O etc.

The elements of both living things and atmosphere would not have been consistent with post flood.

The lifespan of man, size of animals and other phenomena was, according to the Biblical record significantly different than post flood. Some evidence of tropical life in the arctics os observable, lending support to this vapor canopy.

In short, sudden catastrophy. the magnitude of what is described in the Biblical record is not conducive to accomodate modern dating methodology.

It is not entirely knowable as to the pre-flood earth and atmosphere, but for sure, it would not be sufficiently uniform to accomodate much of the conventional dating methodology.

My bone of contention is as applicable to the conventional YEC hypothesis premise as it is to the evolutionist one. A literal rendering of Genesis one is not compatible with the six millennium earth age. This is a different topic but it has been hashed over in past threads.

So perhaps my answer to your question would be yes, ID creationists would need a different dating methodology. I'm not sure whether there is enough known or enough to be assumed about the pre-flood earth and atmosphere to implement such a methology.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zubbbra25, posted 10-18-2010 1:30 PM Zubbbra25 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2010 8:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 85 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 8:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 87 by Coyote, posted 11-12-2010 8:31 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 88 by hooah212002, posted 11-12-2010 8:31 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 112 by Zubbbra25, posted 11-13-2010 5:23 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1647
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 84 of 144 (591268)
11-12-2010 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
The reason I've been arguing for rejecting conventional dating methodology is that the earth and atmosphere was significantly different than post flood.

The implications of all preflood data in the Biblical record indicate a vapor canopy like atmosphere which was likely much larger, extending further into what is now space, the warmer close to earth layers of it effecting expansion into space, consisting a significant more volumn of H2O etc.


You forgot to mention that you have never provided evidence of the imaginary vapor canopy nor have you given an explanation as to how all the various dating methods are wrong and yet still agree with each other.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 85 of 144 (591269)
11-12-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Buz posts nonsense again.
Buz writes:

Here's the deal. The reason I've been arguing for rejecting conventional dating methodology is that the earth and atmosphere was significantly different than post flood.

Buz, you have never presented any evidence supporting that assertion and you have been shown evidence that absolutely refutes the Biblical Flood.

When you continue to claim the Biblical Flood ever happened you simply show that you are being willfully ignorant or downright dishonest.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 144 (591270)
11-12-2010 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Taq
11-10-2010 3:09 PM


Re: The Creationist Literature
Taq writes:

slevesque writes:

Creationist models have always had a gliciation period following the flood.

What dating methods did they use to determine the extent and timing of these glaciation periods? Or are they simply asserted to have happened without any evidence whatsoever?

I don't know about the conventional creationist models depict relative to glaciation, but the Buzsaw model would depict no glaciation period perse. The flood waters would have been relatively warm globally post flood, the poles eventually freezing subquently to the receeding of the flood waters but not to the extent of implementing a glacial period perse. In fact, the equator temperate zone would have been as hot as it is presently and the only glaciation would have been at the poles, not extending into the more temperate zones of the planet.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Taq, posted 11-10-2010 3:09 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Taq, posted 11-15-2010 1:09 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5788
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 87 of 144 (591271)
11-12-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
So perhaps my answer to your question would be yes, ID creationists would need a different dating methodology. I'm not sure whether there is enough known or enough to be assumed about the pre-flood earth and atmosphere to implement such a methology.

This should not be a problem, because the evidence shows there was no global flood as described in the bible.

What you are doing is equivalent of claiming to get 500 mpg in your car because of the sssckdkdz factor. The sssckdkdz factor, of course, doesn't exist. And, just as we can determine the actual fuel mileage in your car and thus disprove the sssckdkdz factor, we can determine whether there was a global flood or not in historic times. This is not rocket science. Even my own archaeological research is sufficient to show that the flood never happened as described. It's so easy almost anyone can do it!

If creationists want to base a dating method on the flood and it's effects, or on the sssckdkdz factor, they will have to present evidence that either of these things exists first. In the case of the flood this will be difficult, as the early creationist geologists, seeking to document the flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 9:00 PM Coyote has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 318 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 88 of 144 (591272)
11-12-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:11 PM


Re: Independent Dating Techniques
My bone of contention is as applicable to the conventional YEC hypothesis...

Your "bone of contention" is that you consider yourself an "ID creationist" which flies in the face of creationism AND IDism........ I'm not even sure you know what side you play for. As for the rest of the drivel in your post: that's all meaningless BuzSpeak. It's meaningless. You've never provided evidence for anything other than your ignorance. You don't even speak English half the time and you claim to be some great patriot. Juan down the block speaks more proper English than you, Buz.


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:41 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 144 (591273)
11-12-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Assuming Premise, Then What?
Jar and Jones, an assumed flood premise and pre-flood Biblical premise clearly implicates a vapor canopy. This thread is not the place to debate the flood or the vapor canopy.

My point was to show why such a premise would not be compatible with conventional dating data.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.
Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 11-12-2010 8:37 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 11-15-2010 1:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 122 by jar, posted 11-15-2010 1:18 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28841
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 90 of 144 (591275)
11-12-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Buzsaw
11-12-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Assuming Premise, Then What?
Then present the evidence that will allow an accurate alternate dating method or show how any of your imagined Pre-Flood conditions would effect the conventional dating methods.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Buzsaw, posted 11-12-2010 8:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017