Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions

That is your continual accusation. You should cut and paste me saying that in context. Where did I say that ?I said YOU and your kind say that but confounding the facts is the core complaint against evolution to begin with.In reality it is you who assert everything a lie which evidences against your sacred cows.Your entire basis of argument is assert your intellectual superiority and my failure to see it.This is called an idiot argument that relies on persons with the same viewpoint to go along with your charade.You are successful in evading the points which is your true intent = validity of points and your inability to intelligently counter.

Still waiting for an answer to the question asked in Message 128.Once we get that settled we can go on to the next question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your post 121, WT, for just one of many examples.Are you now NOT saying that the geologists are twisting the data to fit a given date? Are you saying you never suggested that was the explanation for the information on dating that Mark gave you?Just exactly what are you saying? Message 121You've gone on about our asserting things as lies. When we do that we give reasons for it. We point out where the individuals involved are both wrong and our reasons for thinking that they should know that they are wrong. When you publish material that you know is wrong then that is close enough to a lie, dontcha think?Now why did you leave out my implied question about you as a Non-YEC going on and on about dates?Care to explain that?

Like a myocardial infarction serious. Find me a record of ONE dinosaur that came out of the La Brea tar pits. One.You can't do it.

hahahaha Oh my. You really don't know anything about geologists and their research, do you? Most geos would absolutely LOVE to contradict the Survey, or anyone else - especially if they are well known.Hell, in my own research it would be wonderful to age-date some rocks and have them come up with different dates. Rocks in my study area were AGE-dated some 20 to 30 years ago () and I have my own ideas of what intruded what, based on more recent mapping. At the moment, my theories don't exactly mesh with previous research and I would love nothing more than to overturn the reigning paradigm in my study area.So no, geologists most certainly do NOT support other findings 'just because.' That is simply asinine.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-29-2004 12:33 AM

Cory, have you been there? There is a beautiful display of a columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi ) there. It is lit in such a wonderful way to be very impressive.It is also BIG! Very, very big. This would, to someone in very bad need of glasses, make them think DINOSAUR. That is what WT has gotten out of all his visits there. That is how carefully he reads.

Never made this claim.The museum sure does.

First we might need to get this clear. We assumed that you were talking about the Los Angles Natural History Museum at La Brea. Is that correct?If so, prove that they said such a thing or anything even a little bit close to it. Give me as clear a statment of what you think they said and I'll try to contact them but you won't believe me when I tell you that they said no such thing.So why don't you check?If it isn't the La Brea museum I guess there may well be a museum who says such a completely stupid thing. What museum was it then?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-28-2004 10:51 PM

Actually if you do want to back this up instead of retracting it then ask and I will start a thread for it since it is way off topic here. Ok?This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 10-28-2004 10:53 PM

Because evos are asserting an age of Earth based upon unreliable methods/black boxes.I am with Milton - nobody knows the age of the Earth except that it predates calendar history.Dr. Scott for 25 years gave evos the benefit of all doubts and never said a bad word about their foundational claims. He is honest in reporting that Genesis could support a very old Earth. As recently as the year 2000 Dr. Scott changed his neutral stance and condemned the major tenets of evolution based upon the inescapable truths of Romans 1 AND the voluminous corroborating evidence. Yet, excluded from these condemnations were, and I quote, "I believe the Earth is of immense age".Dr. Scott also points out that evolutionary scenario and Biblical scenario are a chasm apart and only ONE can be correct. Big picture evidence smashes the evo scenario.He believes that micro-evolution is a fact within species and that whatever hominid fossils in existence technically cannot jeopardize the claim of Genesis that God created Adam. Here we have the greatest theist scholar in the world bending over backwards to accomodate evolution, yet evolutuonary scenario is so spoken up for and stringent that it can only be fashioned after the way their arch-nemesis predecessors - the medieval bishops ran the store = total intolerance.Dr. Scott and I have ONE issue: God must be Creator, everything else is debateable. Reject Him ? Romans says why, which thus renders every other conclusion by these persons defective if they are offered to disprove a Biblical claim.Milton has points and evidence which nobody can sensibly answer.My only interest is the declarations that the dating methods are reliable when they are not. Have your old Earth as long as this is not interpreted to somehow say Genesis is wrong.Evos have criminally lumped every creationist to be a god-damn young Earth fundie - not true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

e:Geological systems are not the same thickness in every location. This is well understood by geologists. To make a general column it does not really make sense to assign a thickness.

---

​

This is Milton's point - one of them.

---

Nope. Milton's point is that sedimentation should be uniform and continuous. This is not the geological understanding. In other words Milton creates a strawman.

quote:

---

The inconsistency of the Geological Column next to Uniformitarian theory/assertions.

---

No again. One of these columns is actually a time scale, not a stratigraphic column. If Milton were were more knowledgable, he would not be making such ludicrous statement. And you wouldn't be swallowing it whole.

quote:

---

Why does the column assert uniformity except in relatively modern times ?

---

The column asserts nothing. Your statement makes no sense, once again.

quote:

---

Where does the column imply time and not thickness ?

---

It is obviously scaled to years and not thickness. Check the scale.

quote:

---

At any rate, the time involved and the thickness could not be capable of fossilizing entire forests etc.etc.

---

This is your problem. Time and thickness are not directly related. THis is a naive assumption

quote:

---

Milton's criticism is so obvious and valid - you are looking foolish.

---

Actually, Milton's ignorance is obvious here. And he takes advantage of YOUR ignorance which is evidently much deeper.

quote:

---

Because evos are asserting an age of Earth based upon unreliable methods/black boxes.

---

You have not shown this.

quote:

---

I am with Milton -

---

Ignorance loves company...

quote:

---

...nobody knows the age of the Earth except that it predates calendar history.

---

That is silly. You say there are no clues?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott for 25 years gave evos the benefit of all doubts and never said a bad word about their foundational claims. He is honest in reporting that Genesis could support a very old Earth. As recently as the year 2000 Dr. Scott changed his neutral stance and condemned the major tenets of evolution based upon the inescapable truths of Romans 1 AND the voluminous corroborating evidence. Yet, excluded from these condemnations were, and I quote, "I believe the Earth is of immense age".

---

Please explain. What is the corroborating evidence?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott also points out that evolutionary scenario and Biblical scenario are a chasm apart and only ONE can be correct. Big picture evidence smashes the evo scenario.

---

Once again, please present your evidence. How old is the earth according to your clock?

quote:

---

He believes that micro-evolution is a fact within species and that whatever hominid fossils in existence technically cannot jeopardize the claim of Genesis that God created Adam. Here we have the greatest theist scholar ...

---

Maybe he should try to be a little more scholar and a little less theist...

quote:

---

...in the world bending over backwards to accomodate evolution, yet evolutuonary scenario is so spoken up for and stringent that it can only be fashioned after the way their arch-nemesis predecessors - the medieval bishops ran the store = total intolerance.

---

Do you always have this problem with focussing?

quote:

---

Dr. Scott and I have ONE issue: God must be Creator, everything else is debateable. Reject Him ? Romans says why, which thus renders every other conclusion by these persons defective if they are offered to disprove a Biblical claim.

​

Milton has points and evidence which nobody can sensibly answer.

---

That is because they make no sense. Just like the geological time scale that he interpretes as a strat column. Yep, I can't answer that one!

quote:

---

My only interest is the declarations that the dating methods are reliable when they are not.

---

Then you have to explain why there are any concordant dates at all. THis should be impossible. I should have to conduct huge number of analyses to come up with a number of concordant dates by different methods.

quote:

---

Have your old Earth as long as this is not interpreted to somehow say Genesis is wrong.

---

Genesis is not wrong. You are.

quote:

---

Evos have criminally lumped every creationist to be a god-damn young Earth fundie - not true.

---

No. Some are simple nut cases.

quote:

---

Rocks in my study area were dated some 20 to 30 years ago...

---

Dated to be 20 to 30 (million?) years old? Or was the dating done 20 to 30 years ago?My guess is that you need an edit and/or clarification there.No reply needed.MooseThis message has been edited by minnemooseus, 10-28-2004 11:43 PM

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Still waiting for an answer to the question asked in Message 128.Once we get that settled we can go on to the next question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are employing what is called an idiot argument.You are asserting unless I agree with you that I am an idiot.IOW, you are this esoterically enlightened chosen special person and I am too dumb to know that one of your kind gone astray is duping me.That is the exact argument that atheists use against spiritual leaders and their flocks.It is also the exact argument of the Bible when it describes the deceived victims of Satan.I find it interesting that you rely on a philosophical argument in a science topic instead of evidence. But I agree that philosophy is king and not science.