Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] [/QUOTE]What is fantastic about that claim?A meteorite called Allende:
Pb-207/Pb-206 = 4.50 by
Pb-207/U-235 = 5.57 by
Pb-206/U-238 = 8.82 by
Pb-208/T-232 = 10.4 by
Sr-87/Sr-86 = 4.48 byTwo agree. Three do not.[/b][/QUOTE]Do you have citations for that context-free data? It seems to be inconsistent with results given by Dalrymple in a web article at
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/8906_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.aspTable 1. Radiometric ages for 3 chondrite meteorites. Meteorite Method Age (Ga) Lab
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.52 ++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.53++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.48++0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.55++ 0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.55++0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.57++0.03 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.50 ++ 0.02 1
Allende 40Ar/39Ar 4.56++0.05 1
Allende Pb-Pb isochron (27 points) 4.553++ 0.004 7
Guarena 40Ar/39Ar 4.44++ 0.06 2
Guarena Rb-Sr isochron (13 points) 4.46++ 0.08 4
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.43++ 0.04 5
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.38++ 0.04 6
St Servin 40Ar/39Ar 4.42++0.04 6
St Servin Rb-Sr isochron (10 points)< 4.51++ 0.15 3
St Servin Sm-Nd isochron (4 points) 4.55++0.33 4
St Servin Pb-Pb isochron (5 points) 4.543++ 0.019 3From compilation in Dalrymple (1991). Data from university laboratories in Germany(1), Great Britain(2), France (3), California (4), Minnesota (5), Missouri (6), and the USGS in Denver, Colorado (7).The case for consistency in radiometric datings seems well supported.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Are Mark's innumerable example/models really conclusive of anything other than 'way out' speculation, i.e., supporting an uncanny theory of mutationals)? Do they beg the question of mutations without proving the mutations?

---

Then go to post 106 & explain the evidence using the flood scenario.Or would the flood scenario be "way out" speculation?Please be substantive. Leave nothing out.The fossil record supports evolution as having occurred. It says nothing of the mechanism.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 05-29-2002]

Semming out of nothing I with a "druken gate" crossed this path once again. To work any catastrophe singularity into the model of evolution so thought (think "taught" as that would be law then) e(envornment) whether squared or square rooted or other funcionallity applied would have to inform the d^2 compared to taught h^2 equivalent data warehousing and not informing the the evnvironement flooded or not from the development which need not be example of gas engine not flooded under consideration to thus have said that I leave this not "out". Thanks for the degree of confidence. (h-heritbility, d-development). Fisher and Wright argue about this and I can by some yet to fancy way of using d not squared but circled by *w and w under some freedom to rotate could make an exempar of Waddingtion the same way that Wright did but three times over which would pre-predict some singular catastrophes then wrong possibly but during the stat refinemine we might gain rather than loose in knoweldge FOR THE SAME INFORMATION else peace will come to c-e land and that land land lost will gain in information as well. Peace IN

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Then go to post 106 & explain the evidence using the flood scenario.

​

Or would the flood scenario be "way out" speculation?

​

Please be substantive. Leave nothing out.

​

The fossil record supports evolution as having occurred. It says nothing of the mechanism.

​

Mark

​

---

--Of course the flood is way out speculation and must require ‘supernatural’ forces for it to have lasted 40 days/nights. You know, the G’didit phenomenon. Same as the creation itself. Scientifically, it is impossible (I concur).--But the speculation seems more way out as a fossil record supporting mutationals as having occurred (regardless of the mechanism).I would sooner scientifically accept that life has been here ‘billions’ of years sans intermediary mutationals. But then devolvement and catastrophes would have caused great decay. This would beg ‘special creation’ in those layers (which at present I don’t perceive).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

--But the speculation seems more way out as a fossil record supporting mutationals as having occurred (regardless of the mechanism).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

I would sooner scientifically accept that life has been here ‘billions’ of years sans intermediary mutationals. But then devolvement and catastrophes would have caused great decay. This would beg ‘special creation’ in those layers (which at present I don’t perceive).

---

I am attempting to have an evidence based discussion, having God do it, or Zorquan XIII, the Galactic Goat, Creator of Universes, Destroyer of worlds do it is beyond science, & makes your imagination your only limit.The possibility that the fossil record is incomplete is a physical possibility, & doesn't require God/Zorquan. Is it so improbable? If there were NO transitional/intermediates you may have a point, but there ARE.What do you think the fossil record best represents?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

JP,106 please.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mark, predicting species occurrance and in the question fossils (for I would allow croizat's that living distributions inform procedurally fossil and not the other way palentologically around)has become a supercomputer supported business and the lone gun person creationist can never be expected to marshall andy and all resources though I may need to get futher into your conversation with JP to address the envelope please...(the work as it exists comes from some generalized correlation of elapid snakes and climate which I have read differently in Croizat and the math support is in part being re-writ (the state of computational ecology) by a former teacher of mine you bowed out of my ideational system for it being too philosophical, it was only moral, ... I had not had the idea for statitical refinement at that time that snakes were used to support the supercomuting from San Diegooo so we are not any where near being able to predict fossils like gold or diamonds any time soon BECUASE evolutionists will not make even a rough row "b"oa spell otherwise with me to get to the newark super group I know.But again if futher I will to your reference detail learn. no fender wa bender agin not- io

Can I surmise that, after posting a few messages and making a number of assertions, John Paul will again disappear until the questions addressed to him have quietly slipped off the radar and then suddenly he will reappear and choose to ignore those inconvenient questions?I note that points in messages 106 and 108 (at least) remain unaddressed by John Paul.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

What do you think the fossil record best represents?

---

Mark, I think it represents either (a) the ‘gap’ creationist theory (ID) or (b) the YEC theory (YEC in the sense of solar time, OEC in the sense of molecular time). But in the last 5 years or so, I’ve jumped on the latter boat.
Reasons:
1) My confused data observations on the fossil record and the GC needs more development in my own mind. That is, I require more absolute and comprehensive dogmatic facts regarding the dynamic GC before I can make apt conclusions, as a non-geologist.
2) Gross intermediary mutant changes are absurd to my logic until a better NS or non-NS mechanism is tested and proved.I realize this is indirect reasoning from the geologist/paleontology perspective and regret that I still seek layman’s terms on the sedimentary layer(s).--Phil