|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
"...and its equivalents" means it's all one continuous layer, so what's the problem? The problem is that it's not all one continuous layer. ABE: Note that there's no evidence proffered for that claim. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Clams that grew where they are found are very different from clams that were transported. Leonardo da Vinci figured that out over 500 years ago. You're a little behind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Oh, yeah, that's the wackiest YEC thing I have seen in decades. I've occasionally thought of trying to figure out the stresses involved in picking up a huge slab that the Fludde couldn't pick up all over simultaneously. Not to mention the issues of the difficulty of getting an upward force from the water and maintaining essentially constant upward pressure during the transport.
But Faith would handwave away any discussion of the problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
We are talking about your claim of entire formations being transported as a unit. The formation would not move without a force holding it up. Newton figured that one out. Water and sediment flowing over the land exert only a downward force. Plus the upward force would have to be essentially constant over the entire formation throughout the process or the formation would break up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Berthault's experiments were in flumes in which the distance between the walls was small enough to have a significant effect. There is good reason to question their applicability to open water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Did you notice that experiments in a confined flume are not applicable to open water?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And, of course, it never occurred to you to look.
Berthault's "Stratigraphy" : Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link (it had a " at the end).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
A flume is tightly confined by walls.
A global flood is not. Walls and the floor make a huge difference. They confine the flow to one direction. No cross-currents. No vertical component of flow. Boundary layers on both sides and on the bottom. I realize that you have no clue what a boundary layer is or it's effects. Reality "knows". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
If you are getting different ages from different methods for the same rock you've got a problem. Maybe, maybe not. Depends in why you get different ages. If the investigator is a YEC, it's nearly certain without further investigation that the different results are the result of fraud or misrepresentation. Details on request.
All measurements have a margin of error, and there are things that can affect radiometric dates. However, as has certainly been mentioned before there are multiple methods and the chance that any of them - let alone all of them - is so bad as to make the young Earth a real possibility is negligible. The amount of disagreement among them suggests the whole system is so unreliable anything is possible. Sorry, the amount of disagrement between methods is minuscule. Tens of thousands of measurements, maybe hundreds of thousands. How many unexplained disagreements was that again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Free sample, my personal favorite creationist fraud.
Andrew Snelling wrote two articles on it, one for the sheeple and one "technical". In the latter, but not the former he gave away the gaff, and all you need to know is that "whole rock" means the entire rock, not any individual mineral from the rock, and "xenolith", literally foreign rock, means a piece of an older rock that didn't melt embedded in a younger rock.
ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING":
quote: TL : DR version: Snelling dated a mixture of old and new material and expressed amazement that the date came out as older than the new material. Duh. He presented no data for his claim that the xenoliths were not important. {Also he could have used the much more robust Ar-Ar method, and/or extracted samples of the new material if possible and likely gotten a valid result)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Uncontaminated fossils that are older than the limit of 14C dating do not produce a date.
All of the several fossils creationists have "dated" were either known to be contaminated or extremely likely to be contaminated. In most cases the creationists knew they were contaminated. E.g. Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones? quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Basically, every geological method takes advantage of some information other than the decay formula.
The methods du jour are U-Pb and Ar-Ar. U-Pb dates a sample by two decay chains (235U and 238U). If the dates are the same ("concordant") that's strong evidence that the date is correct. Here the extra information is that the final element in the chain, lead, doesn't fit in the lattice physically or elictrically so the initial daughter product is zero. Ar-Ar is an extension of the simple K-Ar method. First the sample is irradiated to convert 40K to 39Ar. That allows convenient and precise measurements of the ratio of 40Ar/39Ar, involving only one element. Then the sample is heated in a series of temperature steps and a date is calculated for each step. If they are all the same that's a good date. Both methods can often produce a valid date even if the multiple measurements don't agree, but that's more complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Well, they claimed to have found issues.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The laws of physics constrain the attributes of waves. Especially when the depth of the water is much smaller than the wavelength.
You can try to conjure up your looooooong waves, but they couldn't exist in this universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What jumble of bones where? Mainstream geology and paleontology have no problem with a few catastrophies. Your Fludde should produce one worldwide jumble of bones of all possible animals.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024