Why is evolution so controversial?

Since the only "evidence" YOU have is your unreliable easily disrupted radiometric dating, I wouldn't talk about evidence if I were you. There is no reason whatever to assume different magma eruptions for those three different magma products.Sorry I'm doing this in so many separate posts, I could tell by your tone there's no point in talking to you much more so I just answered briefly, but I'll try to do more at once from now on.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, no. Floods are chaotic and don't tend to group like "kinds." With real science (which you erroneously characterize as "Old Earth theory") one would expect to see fossils grouped by time period and geography. That is what we actually see. Of all ages? No. What real science shows is normal population growth and death and accumulation. But since you don't accept scientific dating, you have no business making claims about dating whatsoever. You wouldn't believe anything that contradicted your belief system, so you have no credibility in this realm. In modern times, populations tend to die at various ages, not all the exact same age. Nautiloids should be found of various ages and sizes.And "transported?" From where? How about they were all just formed there (wherever "there" was at the time)?Another problem for the disproved flood theory--the more you "transport" things in a chaotic manner, the more mixing you will have. You are trying to convince us you will have sorting! What a joke!I guess I have to admire (sort of) your persistence in trying to support the flood "theory" in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it. But there comes a point where persistence becomes pure pig-headed stubborness. I'm afraid you have long since passed that point.Which leads me to wonder what kind of a deity would require one to believe six impossible things before breakfast (per Alice) and a whole lot more afterwards. Don't you ever wonder just who it is that's really trying to fool you?

You and other creationists have had ample opportunity to dispute various forms of radiometric dating in our threads here.You (as a group) have failed. The evidence you have presented has been shown to be inaccurate and unsupported time and again. This is true for both your specific claims and others found on creationist websites and in creationist literature.Until you (and creationists as a group) can support your claims that radiometric dating is inaccurate, you have no business making those claims.As Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

So you didn't read my post, did you?What is your evidence that radiometric dates are universally unreliable?

More unsupported assertions laced with obligatory insults. I can see that I wasted my time on you.

quote:

---

I've given you my alternative explanation, I've included enough reasoning to support it.

---

So, where is the evidence for detachment between the Toroweap and all underlying rocks? Oh, wait! You didn't support that, did you?

quote:

---

Take it or leave it, I'm tired of arguing with people whose bias is so thick you can't see a well reasoned argument through the fog of bigotry and wounded professional pride.

---

Heh, heh...Righteous indignation based on ignorance. I love it. You have become a caricature of the ignorant YEC.Enjoy.

Well, I wouldn't want you to lose sleep. Like that's news? Edited by edge, : No reason given.

What about Fluorine absorption dating, sure its just a relative dating method ie telling ou if something is older or younger then something. But it comformes nicely with radiometric dating methods, even though its using completely different principles.Or what about optically stimulated luminescence, workes on minerals, well technically it tells us when something was buried (had no access to sunlight anymore), also conformes nicely with radiometric dating methods, even though its using completely different principles.or Rehydroxylation dating, it tells us when the clay thingy was last wet, But it comformes nicely with radiometric dating methods, even though its using completely different principles.Thermoluminescence dating simmilar to optically stimulated luminescence you just heat the stuff up instead of shining a birth light at it, But it comformes nicely with radiometric dating methods, even though its using completely different principlesOr any of the other 40 or so dating methods that all conform, saddly we dont have a dating method that says the earth is 6000 years old. Accept a bronze age book.

Hi Faith,You seem to have somehow missed Message 373. Only you could find the term "marine sediments" ambiguous. That's "marine" as in "not land".In Message 359 you said: Most sedimentary layers are marine, so if the marine layers formed from material washing off of the land mass then most of the material on the land mass must have been marine. What is your evidence that most of the material on the antediluvian land mass was marine? What is your evidence that your flood scooped up material from the sea floor and deposited it on the land? What we actually observe about floods is that they wash material off the land and into the sea, not the other way around. If you think it did happen the other way around, what is your evidence? What is your evidence that all the sedimentary layers of the Earth were laid down within a year?If all the material in today's sedimentary layers originally resided on top of the antediluvian landscapes and seafloors, what is your evidence for how they came to be in their original location? There are millions and millions of cubic miles of silt and clay and limestone and shale and sandstone sedimentary layers out there today. At the rates we measure today it would have taken hundreds of millions of years to produce and deposit this much material. What evidence are you looking at that tells you how all this material was produced and deposited onto the antediluvian landscapes and seafloors in the couple thousand years between creation and the flood?I hope the answer you make up doesn't include material being deposited on land prior to the flood. To create deposits even just a mile deep they would have to accumulate at the rate of 2 to 3 feet per year over a period of two thousand years. Oh, those poor antediluvian farmers trying to keep the deposits from burying their homes and fields!--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar, improve clarity.

And everywhere else it has been discussed.

Not sure why anyone is bothering to discuss this with Faith. Faith has an indisputable answer to all.Godidit!End of discussion.

Perfection? I don't think so. This is just you again casting untrue aspersions.When deposited layers lie undisturbed until dated then radiometric dating is very straightforward and one can use a single simple method like K-Ar dating and be fairly confident in the date. If a layer hasn't lain undisturbed then dating becomes more difficult and more sophisticated dating techniques will have to be brought into play. Other factors can also make a layer difficult to date. This has been explained many times.What evidence do you have for a flood depositing sedimentary layers in order of isotopic concentrations that yield increasing younger dates in each succeeding layer? What evidence do you have of simple water having any influence whatsoever over isotopic concentrations?You don't even have any evidence of floods sorting by type of sedimentary material, let alone by isotope. In that case would you please describe the evidence you have that would cast doubt on the reliability of these methods? Science is always working toward a more and more accurate understanding of our universe, so increasingly our accuracy is evidence for the methods, not against.Maps of the world have also changed over time as techniques of measurement improved from stride lengths to measuring tapes to aerial observations to lasers to GPS, in the same way as radiometric dating techniques have improved, so by creationist logic one could say, "Columbus thought Japan was only 3000 miles west of Europe, and then we kept changing it. Measuring distances is completely unreliable and I don't take any claims regarding distance seriously. The distance form London to New York could be 10 miles or 10,000 miles, who knows." Your diagram is for a specific spot in the Grand Canyon. Do you see the Vulcan's Throne Basalts layer in your diagram? I've circled the layer portion here in an orangish yellow: See how that layer formed by a volcanic intrusion that you can see rising up vertically on the left side of the diagram? Well, the Cardenas Basalts intrusion that I've drawn a red square around also formed a layer, this one parallel to the Unkar Group. It was apparently eroded away in this particular section of the canyon but is present in other parts of the canyon. And the tilted intrusion, which was once vertical, is a column, not a plane. It does not extend into and out of the page like the layers do.Of course if the Unkar Group were never at the surface and so was never exposed to erosion then the Cardenas Basalts layer could never have eroded away, could it. In your creationist scenario the Cardenas Basalts intrusion shown on the diagram that just ends at the top of the Unkar Group could not possibly have ever happened. You couldn't possibly have buried layers that have eroded away at the spot where the vertical intrusion emerged to spread material over the existing layers, but be present at some distance from that spot.Time for more creationist magic, I guess. Well, then, there's a confirming test for your theory. Do you have any evidence that there is any rubble from the Grand Canyon Supergroup in the Vishnu Schist? Huge vistas of Vishnu Schist are visible in some parts of the canyon. If it is full of supergroup rubble then it should be very apparent. I don't know how everyone has missed it after all this time, but I guess if you say it's there then it must be there, right?Or are you just making things up again?--Percy

I agree that it's pointless to discuss with Faith, I have no excuse. Oh, wait, I'm doing it for the lurkers! Yeah, that's it, the lurkers! But she's not arguing that "Godidit." She's arguing that it happened naturally, obeying scientific laws. Of course, she thinks that scientific laws include magic water and magic rotating layers and so forth.--Percy

Now that I look at it, this diagram is a bit of an unfortunate choice for Faith to present.There are at least 4 distinct unconformities present, and that doesn't count the modern one.The Cardenas depiction is a bit confusing since it doesn't actually show the main occurrence of basalt, but even then this diagram is a clear indictment of the YEC viewpoint of the Grand Canyon.