Dating Methods Controversy Discussion

I see what you mean by "the densest/largest particle one not get sorted just at the bottom". Have you ever played around with one of those things, I forgot what they are called, you find them in spencers. Its that thing with 2 peices of glass side by side with water inside it and different types of sediments, dark and white. When you tip it over and watch it as it piles about on the bottom you will notice that it isn't how you would think it would be seeing that it sorts by density and particle size. It creates layers of the different sediments, not just all the dark on the bottom and all the white on the top or vice versa (you can notice that the darker sediment is much heavier than the white sediment as it falls to the bottom). This is the same mechenism that would create varves such as in the green river formation and can be tested by sanding off the various varve sediments and conducting this experiment.

Thats not really what I mean. Those are different sands. Here there are only 3 variables. The kerogen, the sandstone, & calcium carbonate. All three sink at different rates, & providing you can really mix them up, the fastest sinker would be at the bottom, the medium in the middle, & slowest on top. There is no mechanism to have the fastest sinker banding at the bottom, then band again ABOVE the medium sinker, & YET AGAIN above the slowest sinker. the sand things you describe would do the same if you could really shake them up & separate the colours, ASSUMING they are different particles & not just coloured. Also, enough space for true separation is required, possibly a larger container would produce more definable results.So varves couldn't sediment like this out of one huge body of water. You obviously will refute this, which is why I'm after an article or something.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-22-2001]

"What event are we talking about? I'm lost."I was straying toward the feasibility of the Flood I guess, that would be a more valid discussion to take place in my other topic."You haven't discussed much evidence at all, you know."Have I not? I would say I have given ralatively much more than you have proposed, I would invite you to participate and answer questions, respond to refutations, etc."You have engaged in a great deal of vague, wild speculation with no basis in evidence."I make vague responses sure, but im not going to answer questions that havent been asked of me. Just about all of my 'wild speculations' have basis in evidence. Again I would invite you to participate, it is unwize to make these speculations on me without doing so much as critisizing my person."You are mostly making things up to fit your story, not explaining, in detail, any specific points of evidence that have been observed."Am I making things up? Technically, I am, what does that mean? Well it means that if what I am doing (making things up) then you should look at the story of evolution and they make up many things. Do I have a problem with it? No as long as it is logical and is supported by evidence, though I may have my own interperetation of this evidence meaning that it can't 'have to mean this'. If you would like more detail, then ask 'detailed' questions, if you ask a vague question, you will most likely get a vague answer."Yes, and many current Creationists want to ignore all of it and want to set science back 300 years."Sure some do, however, this is an argument from athority which doesn't have any basis in feasibility, logicality, or reasonability in creationist theories. Directing this speculation toward me is not very wise without reason or explination."Are you telling me that you have, with an open, willing mind, studied Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, as well as the Bible, and then come to the conclusion that science is all bunk?"To the extent of my studies in evolutionary theories in different professions as well as the bible yes I have come to the conclusion that 'the theory of uniformitarian evolution' is not a good explination. But to say that I would ever come to any conclusion about science being anything less is simply wrong. I am in favor of science, not the 'uniformitarian interperetation' of 'scientific evidence'.No, you believe what you believe because of your faith, regardless of the evidence. I doubt that you have done much study of any science at all. (The non peer-reviewed stuff that the ICR and AIG puts out doesn't count.)To say that I believe what I believe because of blind faith regardless of the evidence is simply ignorant without reason or explination on your part, I would infite you to participate in the discussion and not refutation of me in my person. Also the same to your speculation that I don't know or study science at all. Any information counts as long as it is valid, untill I have another reason otherwize, I will say that you are trying so hard not to say that you are simply prejudice towards Creationism based on science, evidence, theories, etc. or not.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-31-2001]

quote:

---

"You have engaged in a great deal of vague, wild speculation with no basis in evidence."

​

I make vague responses sure, but im not going to answer questions that havent been asked of me. Just about all of my 'wild speculations' have basis in evidence.

---

When you make claims about how natural events happened in the past, or happen now, you (almost without exception) simply state them as true without including any supporting peer-reviewed scientific evidence.By contrast, I often include references to the scientific literature in my posts, or sometimes a link for more information which lists credible references.

quote:

---

Again I would invite you to participate, it is unwize to make these speculations on me without doing so much as critisizing my person.

---

I am not criticizing your person at all. I am criticizing the lack of references in your posts to any actual good research to support your claims .It's easy to rattle off a long list of "X happened because of A, B, and C" when you don't take the trouble to back up what you say with real references to the peer-reviewed literature. When A, B, and C are causes that are contrary to what the fields of Physics, Biology, Geology, and Paleontology have come up with, you need to provide some pretty extraordinary evidence.

quote:

---

"You are mostly making things up to fit your story, not explaining, in detail, any specific points of evidence that have been observed."
Am I making things up? Technically, I am, what does that mean?

---

It means that you come at the problem with what you are "supposed" to find, and make up a story, no matter how outlandish or unrealistic or just simply wrong, to try to make the evidence fit your religious views.

quote:

---

Well it means that if what I am doing (making things up) then you should look at the story of evolution and they make up many things.

---

Scientific theories are based upon positive evidence, testable hypotheses and potential falsifications. Nobody simply makes stuff up to fit a theory. Making stuff up is very, very frowned upon in science.Science is EVIDENCE-BASED.

quote:

---

Do I have a problem with it? No as long as it is logical and is supported by evidence, though I may have my own interperetation of this evidence meaning that it can't 'have to mean this'.

---

ROTFL! How can you interpret evidence? You most likely haven't even been exposed to much of the evidence, particularly if you only hear of it filtered through the Bible folks. You gave a long "interpretation" of the evidence regarding pterosaurs and it was clear to me that you, forgive my bluntness, don't know the first thing about pterosaurs.

quote:

---

If you would like more detail, then ask 'detailed' questions, if you ask a vague question, you will most likely get a vague answer.

---

OK, here's a few.Define "kind".If the various radiometric dating methods are all incorrect, how is it that they are all wrong in such a way that they are amazingly consistent with one another?Why do flowering plants, including whole forests of flowing trees in sucessive layers, appear very late in the fossil record, if a global flood sorted everything by density?If there was a global flood, then why do we find fossil footprints in every geologic layer?

quote:

---

"Yes, and many current Creationists want to ignore all of it and want to set science back 300 years."

​

Sure some do, however, this is an argument from athority which doesn't have any basis in feasibility, logicality, or reasonability in creationist theories. Directing this speculation toward me is not very wise without reason or explination.

---

This is not an argument from authority.An argument from authority is one in which a famous or important person or institution is invoked to try to add credibility or power to an argument. For exapmle, alien abduction advocates boast that John Mack, also an alien abduction proponent, lends credability to their cause because he is a Harvard professor, instead of arguing the actual evidence for the abductions.The ToE revolutionized the life sciences and is one of the most important scientific advances ever made. None of Biology would make any sense at all without it.The Answers In Genesis site ignores much of the last 300 years of scientific advancement, so the source you often list is maintained the kind of people who want to set science back. Therefore, if you support AiG, you want to set us back, too.

quote:

---

"Are you telling me that you have, with an open, willing mind, studied Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, as well as the Bible, and then come to the conclusion that science is all bunk?"

​

To the extent of my studies in evolutionary theories in different professions as well as the bible yes I have come to the conclusion that 'the theory of uniformitarian evolution' is not a good explination.

---

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it in greater detail. How much college-level Biology, Geology, or Physics have you studied? What books by Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins have you read? (And I mean the whole book, not quotes) How about Origin of Species? To be honest, much of the stuff you write about science indicates to me that you haven't done much study of any of its disciplines.

quote:

---

But to say that I would ever come to any conclusion about science being anything less is simply wrong. I am in favor of science, not the 'uniformitarian interperetation' of 'scientific evidence'.

---

This silliness about 'the theory of uniformitarian evolution' is just Creationist-speak for science not invoking miracles.Tell me, how would inquiry be benefited by scientists being able to say "Godidit" every time they couldn't explain something?You like science as long as you can somehow use it to support your religious views.

quote:

---

No, you believe what you believe because of your faith, regardless of the evidence. I doubt that you have done much study of any science at all. (The non peer-reviewed stuff that the ICR and AIG puts out doesn't count.)

​

To say that I believe what I believe because of blind faith regardless of the evidence is simply ignorant without reason or explination on your part, I would infite you to participate in the discussion and not refutation of me in my person.

---

Look, what would falsify your interpretation of the Genesis account in the Christian Bible for you? Nothing, right? Then you have faith that it is true, regardless of the evidence. Simple.

quote:

---

Also the same to your speculation that I don't know or study science at all.

---

I am sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but a great deal of what you have been saying when you think you are talking about evidence is just a whole lot of unsupported ca-ca, or better yet, directly contradicted by the evidence.You have not made it clear to me that you have thought or studied very much about pterosaurs, for instance, because you said several wrong things about them previously. At the very least, you are terribly sloppy in the way you argue, as if anything you decide to make up about how you might think things could be, or would like them to be to fit your story better, will suffice.Also, you have quoted other authors work on several occasions without attribution, which I always view with suspicion.In general, you give the impression of somone unaquainted with how science is done and of the basics of Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Paleontology, and Physics, yet you feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the fields.I care not a single bit if people are Creationists. Just don't call your religion science.Any information counts as long as it is valid, untill I have another reason otherwize, I will say that you are trying so hard not to say that you are simply prejudice towards Creationism based on science, evidence, theories, etc. or not.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

"When you make claims about how natural events happened in the past, or happen now, you (almost without exception) simply state them as true without including any supporting peer-reviewed scientific evidence."--What would you consider 'peer-reviewd scientific evidence'? What claims would these be that I am making? Address them individually and I am open to discussion, I love discussion and get in depth on a subject, to tell you the truth though the only thing I don't like getting in-depth with is some attributes of scientific history, its just boring to research such as people using Darwins book "Origin of species" (shrugs)."By contrast, I often include references to the scientific literature in my posts, or sometimes a link for more information which lists credible references."--When I use source information I'll post references along with. Sorry about some