Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 12:35 AM
25 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Pressie, PsychMJC, Tanypteryx (5 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,982 Year: 9,018/19,786 Month: 1,440/2,119 Week: 200/576 Day: 3/98 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
6061
...
67Next
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 824 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 871 of 991 (709159)
10-22-2013 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 868 by Granny Magda
10-19-2013 9:01 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
I'll save you the bother. Here is the only thing you've found to back up that particular mistaken belief;

quote:
"The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"
This quote simply does not say that any transgression covered the whole of South China. It mentions a transgression in the late Permian (Changxiangian), followed by a a regression (Changxiangian again), then another transgression at the PTB, then another regression in the Triassic. In none of these examples does it mention the extent of any of these events.

You have no basis upon which to suppose that any of these events represents a total flood, any more than you can suppose that the regressions mentioned left all the land exposed.

The thing you seem to have picked up on is the word "correlated". You seem to think that this word means that the authors are saying that Chahe had a marine incursion. That's not right. They're just saying that all of their observations of the geology in this area can be correlated into an overall picture of events. They're not saying that all those events were marine incursions.

You have simply misunderstood this extract, taking it out of context. Your stubbornness about this is unfortunate.

If everywhere you look in the region, you see the same cycle of transgressions and regressions, this means that they exist everywhere you look.
"shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"

Sure, there could have been one spot or an entire region that does not contain that transgression in South China. That is what I have asked you to show, but you have not shown it. In the meantime "the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China."

This means the same sequence of transgressions were found across the area.

The Flood can't include much in the way of Permian layers if you're going to insist upon calling the Siberian Traps event the "fountains of the deep". That has to happen at the beginning of the flood to remain in accord with the Bible story.

Further, the Kayitou formation does have marine layers, but at the earliest Triassic it is non-marine, so that is just as bad for your argument as the Xuanwei.

I do believe radiometric dating is a loose reflection on relative dates but my timeframes are extremely compressed during the PT boundary. This is due to the magnetic field reversing during that time, slowing down radiometric decay to slower levels even than today. Thus I would associate the 255/260 million ya volcanism (Emeishan Traps) with the beginnings of the volcanic induced rainfall of the flood. Obviously stratigraphy is an accurate reflection of relative dates. Late Permian layers that reflect disarticulated fossils, and reducing numbers of Permian markers along with increased clastic rocks showing increased fluvial flows would in my view reflect the initial volcanic induced rainfalls, escalating toward the Permian Traps in which they peaked. The volcanic ash would be most detectable during the volcanic peaks. (Emeishan then Siberian).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 868 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2013 9:01 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2013 12:14 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 824 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 872 of 991 (709161)
10-22-2013 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 870 by frako
10-22-2013 7:14 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Well you theory is wrong. Muons decay in to neutrinos not neutrons specificity 2 neutrinos and one electron. About 65 billion neutrinos pass trough every square centimetre of the earth every SECOND. Damm its a wonder we even get our nuclear reactors running if they slow down the decay rate. O yes, they don't.

Oh and we use NEUTRONS to start nuclear decay in reactors we fire them at uranium -235 that causes that particular atom to decay and release more neutrons that hit other atoms cause them to decay and release more neutrons ......

Some people do want to associate neutrinos with changes to decay rates, but I agree with you they have no effect. I never mentioned neutrinos, I'm referring specifically to neutrons.

With specifically heavy isotopes, neutrons can maintain their instability through neutron capture. ie the unstable parent isotope through the capture of neutrons cannot decay into the daughter isotope until the neutron bombardment stops.

Muons give us energetic neutrons through fusion. They also generate neutrons in other ways as well.
http://www.starscientific.com.au/muon-catalysed-fusion/
"Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the natural repelling force is overcome and a strong nuclear force brings the atoms together – causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to do its job all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic neutrons"

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by frako, posted 10-22-2013 7:14 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 874 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 8:22 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 882 by frako, posted 10-22-2013 12:55 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 824 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 873 of 991 (709164)
10-22-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 868 by Granny Magda
10-19-2013 9:01 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
I would love to hear your detailed analysis of the mechanism behind this. How does a magnetic reversal affect the dating exactly?

Besides, your timing is out. If the Flood is 4500 years ago, with an apparent age of 252 000 000 years ago, then we get a measure of about 56 000 apparent geological years per mindspawn year. The longest your Flood can cover in the geological record is about 56 000 years

My "Mindspawn years" are not on an even scale with mainstream years. They fluctuate according to the strength of the magnetic field. There was a magnetic reversal during the PT boundary and so I believe there has been extreme extension of that particular period (my timeframe is extremely compressed during the PT boundary).

If you want to fantasise that this marine incursion would have had no marine life, you need to explain why it differs from every other marine incursion. This is another example of you making sad little excuses for missing evidence.

For 3 reasons there would be less marine life during a rapid worldwide flood at the PT boundary:
1) It was a sudden and rapid flood followed by a rapid regression. (not enough time for new ecosystems to develop)
2) There were general outflows away from continents until the water settled (glaciation melting)
3) During the initial stages of the flood, the sea close to the submerged continents would have consisted of very cold freshwater from the melt, a unique environment unsuited to the slightly warmer saline lifeforms of the ocean.

Not all of them though. There are still plenty of PTB sequences with marine fossils. There's no reason to imagine that any PTB marine section would be devoid of life.

Vimesy also makes an excellent point; if you think that these events killed off a lot of the existing life, then we should see their fossils. We don't.

Yes some marine life survived. However most marine life became extinct during the PT boundary.

And we do see their fossils. Permian fossils both marine and terrestrial that never survived the PT boundary and numerous.

You just keep digging don't you.

It doesn't matter whether the lakes in question were freshwater or saline, they were still lakes. Lakes are not found under the sea. A lake under the sea would not be a lake. It would just be more sea.

Similarly, we do find rivers at the bottom of the sea. A river at the bottom of the sea would just be more sea.

As it happens, we know that the lakes in question (those in the Xuanwei formation) were freshwater because they are full of freshwater plants. Ferns don't grow in salt water.

Rivers and lakes are terrestrial features. Your repeated refusal to face this reality is making look like a fool.

The geologists themselves relate the lacustrine environment to the transgression. And please post your evidence that the "lakes in question" are full of freshwater plants.

http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "

The change from meandering fluvial to lacustrine reflects a deepening and transgressive process.

Please read those words carefully. Its the "lake-like" lacustrine conditions that reflect the sea coming into the land (transgression).

The very thing you say points away from a transgression, points to a transgression. But I already posted this, so it seems I'm wasting my time with you and your commitment to reading and understanding the links that I post.

Well, I know that "lacustrine" is not a synonym for "marine". And I know that simply saying "Look! A transgression!" does nothing to tell us the extent of the transgression.

I never claimed I could prove a worldwide transgression. I asked you to find somewhere where there isn't one. I'm still waiting. You seem to be distracted by semantics , focussing on words like "terrestrial" and "lacustrine" instead of really getting into what those geologists actually mean.

Since when is "pillock" a swear word? Frankly, "pillock" is the most flattering term I could find for someone who repeatedly insists that a lacustrine environment represents a marine incursion. To be any more complimentary about such incredible foolishness would seem perverse.

I never said pillock was a swearword. You were saying that I was "inviting" swearing, I was just saying I'm also tempted to swear but I refrain, and hoping you also refrain.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 868 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2013 9:01 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4857
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 874 of 991 (709168)
10-22-2013 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 872 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 7:47 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
With specifically heavy isotopes, neutrons can maintain their instability through neutron capture. ie the unstable parent isotope through the capture of neutrons cannot decay into the daughter isotope until the neutron bombardment stops.

Reference required. And calculations of the amount of neutron flux and it's effect on all relevant radioactive isotopes.

Don't ignore (as you of course have) the fact that radioactive decay is an umbrella term for three very different processes, each of which has variations. Yet the vast majority of radiometric dates based on different isotopes agree. Therefore any effect you propose must affect all relevant radioactive isotopes equally. Think especially of 87Rb which decays by electron capture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 7:47 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM JonF has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 824 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 875 of 991 (709170)
10-22-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 874 by JonF
10-22-2013 8:22 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Reference required. And calculations of the amount of neutron flux and it's effect on all relevant radioactive isotopes.

Don't ignore (as you of course have) the fact that radioactive decay is an umbrella term for three very different processes, each of which has variations. Yet the vast majority of radiometric dates based on different isotopes agree. Therefore any effect you propose must affect all relevant radioactive isotopes equally. Think especially of 87Rb which decays by electron capture.

I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.

This process would affect all those processes in which heavy isotopes decay into daughter isotopes. And it would affect all processes that are calibrated against those original processes.

Regarding Rubidium, I'm not a YEC, and have no problem with an old earth. Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute, I believe it represents a 0-6500 ya period.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 874 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 8:22 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 876 by jar, posted 10-22-2013 9:07 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 877 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 878 by Coyote, posted 10-22-2013 10:22 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 879 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2013 10:39 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 881 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2013 12:20 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 883 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2013 1:15 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 886 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2013 5:55 PM mindspawn has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 876 of 991 (709171)
10-22-2013 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Again, all that even if true is once and yet again totally irrelevant to the topic and just another example of your admitted ignorance and also an attempt to misdirect peoples attention from your total failure to address the question.

It is also totally refuted by the evidence of Oklo fission reactors. There we can compare the decayed products to what we see today and guess what? There is no difference. They are what is expected from 235U.

So here is where we stand.

If any of the Biblical Flood myth stories were true we MUST see a bottleneck event signature dating to 4500 years ago in EVERY critter descended from the critters on the Ark.

Such a signature does not exist in any critter yet examined.

Since that includes critters specifically listed as being on the Ark, the Biblical Flood myths have been refuted.

Sorry Jack but it really is that simple.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 895 by mindspawn, posted 10-24-2013 4:10 AM jar has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4857
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 877 of 991 (709188)
10-22-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.

You have not established it as likely. You have not even established that the effect exists (my bet is that it doesn't), or that it can occur under terrestrial conditions (if it happens, I bet it only happens in stars), or that there is sufficient neutron flux to have a significant effect (hint: no) or how it would affect all relevant decays equally.

Regarding Rb, it decays by electron capture. Yet Rb-Sr dates agree with U-Pb dates and Hf-Lu dates SM-Nd and so on. How is electron capture decay affected by neutron flux?

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 270 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 878 of 991 (709189)
10-22-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.

All you have at this stage is a belief that science is wrong.

I do not know enough about the process...

You should have stopped right there.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 879 of 991 (709192)
10-22-2013 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Please splain how you reconcile these two contradictory ideas that are in the consecutive
sentences.

I'm not a YEC, and have no problem with an old earth.

Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute, I believe it represents a 0-6500 ya period.

Are you saying that what science says was a 650 million year period was actually a 6500 year period?

An how long since and of this period till the present time?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 880 of 991 (709195)
10-22-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 871 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 7:32 AM


Re: If the ARK was real here is what we must see.
This whole post seems based upon your inability to understand the English language.

If everywhere you look in the region, you see the same cycle of transgressions and regressions, this means that they exist everywhere you look.
"shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"

No. That is incorrect. "Correlative" does not mean "identical".

quote:
cor·rel·a·tive (k-rl-tv)
adj.
1. Related; corresponding.
2. Grammar Indicating a reciprocal or complementary relationship: a correlative conjunction.

All that libne means is that the Section at Chahe makes sense in relation to the rest of South China's geology. It does not mean that all of South China shows the same geology, that would be moronic.

Sure, there could have been one spot or an entire region that does not contain that transgression in South China. That is what I have asked you to show, but you have not shown it. In the meantime "the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China."

This is utter nonsense. The Chahe section contains no marine layer in the Xuanwei. There is no transgression there. Instead there are only terrestrial layers.

This means the same sequence of transgressions were found across the area.

Quite obviously, it does not. Here is a stratigraphic representation of several sections from South China. Do they look the same to you?

I do believe radiometric dating is a loose reflection on relative dates but my timeframes are extremely compressed during the PT boundary. This is due to the magnetic field reversing during that time, slowing down radiometric decay to slower levels even than today.

And how would this work? You have absolutely no idea. All you know is that it must have worked in exactly the way that best supports your delusions.

Also, you mean faster, not slower. Think about it...

According to the bible, the Flood reached its peak after either forty or one hundred and fifty days. You have chosen to compress at least twelve million years into that. Madness, rank madness.

Thus I would associate the 255/260 million ya volcanism (Emeishan Traps) with the beginnings of the volcanic induced rainfall of the flood.

260 mya, the Xuanwei formation showed terrestrial deposits. No flood.

When exactly is this ever-shifting Flood supposed to have ended?

Onto your next offering, ,message 873; please stop splitting the messages up, it makes it harder to follow.

My "Mindspawn years" are not on an even scale with mainstream years. They fluctuate according to the strength of the magnetic field.

By how much? Please show me the maths.

Then show me how you arrived at this conclusion.

Please note that "I reckon..." is not evidence.

For 3 reasons there would be less marine life during a rapid worldwide flood at the PT boundary:
1) It was a sudden and rapid flood followed by a rapid regression. (not enough time for new ecosystems to develop)
2) There were general outflows away from continents until the water settled (glaciation melting)
3) During the initial stages of the flood, the sea close to the submerged continents would have consisted of very cold freshwater from the melt, a unique environment unsuited to the slightly warmer saline lifeforms of the ocean.

None of this explains why the flooded areas would resemble fluvial or lacustrine deposits.

A marine layer carries marine fossils. You have no marine fossils. Once again, you make flimsy excuses for your lack of evidence; the evidence is hiding again.

Yes some marine life survived. However most marine life became extinct during the PT boundary.

And we do see their fossils. Permian fossils both marine and terrestrial that never survived the PT boundary and numerous.

You don't see their fossils in the Xuanwei. Squirm all you like, the fact remains that the Xuanwei was above sea level when you claim that it should be submerged.

The geologists themselves relate the lacustrine environment to the transgression. And please post your evidence that the "lakes in question" are full of freshwater plants.

I've already posted it.

Check out the key; the entire thing is stuffed with fossil plants. The4 very papers that you have cited have spoken at length about the ferns that grew in these areas. Do I really need to go over this again?

"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "

Your link leads only to a 404 error.

Please read those words carefully. Its the "lake-like" lacustrine conditions that reflect the sea coming into the land (transgression).

But the fact that there are lakes clearly means that the sea did not cover the land. A moronic child could see that a lake cannot exist under the sea. You, apparently, need to have it explained to you. Repeatedly.

I never claimed I could prove a worldwide transgression. I asked you to find somewhere where there isn't one. I'm still waiting.

There was no transgression at Chahe. We can see this because there were lakes. Lakes don't exist under the sea.

You seem to be distracted by semantics , focussing on words like "terrestrial" and "lacustrine" instead of really getting into what those geologists actually mean.

I am "distracted" by the fact that every geologist that either one of us has cited has described this area as terrestrial. For the benefit of the hard-of-thinking, "terrestrial" means "not under the sea".

You are insistent on regrading terrestrial formations as marine, despite the fact that every single expert to study this region disagrees with you. All you are doing here is making yourself look more and more insane.

I never said pillock was a swearword. You were saying that I was "inviting" swearing, I was just saying I'm also tempted to swear but I refrain, and hoping you also refrain.

Oh cut the sanctimonious horseshit.

Can you point to a single geologist who describes the Chahe section as being under the sea at the PTB? No. Instead, they say that it was terrestrial, bearing rivers and lakes. Your ridiculous PTB Flood is trashed and everyone can see it except you.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 871 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 7:32 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 890 by petrophysics1, posted 10-22-2013 9:25 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 881 of 991 (709197)
10-22-2013 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.

Translation; "I have no idea how radiometric decay works, but I bet that magnetism explain it away. Yeah! Magnets! I believe this because of reasons."

You might as well suggest that the rise in temperature affected the decay rate. You'd have exactly the same amount of evidence for it.

Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute, I believe it represents a 0-6500 ya period.

Why that date? What's so special about 600 mya?

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 882 of 991 (709202)
10-22-2013 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 7:47 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Muons give us energetic neutrons through fusion. They also generate neutrons in other ways as well.

Yea the illusive almost cold fusion too bad we are living in the wrong time or we would have energy independence.

And its not 300 times but the muon has a 1% chance of getting "stuck" so if its a lucky muon it can do this forever if its not only once.

With specifically heavy isotopes, neutrons can maintain their instability through neutron capture. ie the unstable parent isotope through the capture of neutrons cannot decay into the daughter isotope until the neutron bombardment stop

This is the first im hearing of this unless you are talking about processes that happen in stars and super nova inapplicable on in nature on earth.

P.s. how strong do you think this neutron bombardment was to be able to do this and how bad was the resulting radiation?


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 7:47 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15037
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 883 of 991 (709203)
10-22-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 875 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 8:48 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
quote:

I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.

So much for any attempt to be accurate, or any concern with the science. At the very least you ought to check to see how plausible your mechanism is and what effects it actually does have.

quote:

This process would affect all those processes in which heavy isotopes decay into daughter isotopes. And it would affect all processes that are calibrated against those original processes.

But can it explain why the different dating mechanisms agree to the extent they do ? (No, it can't).

quote:

Regarding Rubidium, I'm not a YEC, and have no problem with an old earth. Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute, I believe it represents a 0-6500 ya period.

I don't know what the point of saying that you are not a YEC is, when your views are so close that it makes little difference in the matter. You still have to explain why rubidium dating gives the "wrong" results.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 875 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 8:48 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 884 of 991 (709208)
10-22-2013 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by mindspawn
10-22-2013 6:52 AM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Sedimentation would have to be about 50 000 times slower during the Mesozoic to explain fossilisation along the Mississippi. The Mississippi deposits about 200 billion kgs of sediment annually.

Well given that in the right conditions, sedimentation rates can be zero or even negative (erosion), I think your claim that the sedimentation rate cannot vary by a factor of 50,000 is pretty much nonsense.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by mindspawn, posted 10-22-2013 6:52 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 885 by JonF, posted 10-22-2013 4:34 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4857
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 885 of 991 (709218)
10-22-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 884 by NoNukes
10-22-2013 2:20 PM


Re: Uniformity assumptions...
Even worse for our deluded pal, the Mississippi River is around 10,000 years old, and at most parts of it could be two million years old. The Mesozoic ended around 65 million years ago. So speaking of the Mississippi River during the Mesozoic is ipso facto meaningless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 884 by NoNukes, posted 10-22-2013 2:20 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
5758
59
6061
...
67Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019