|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fountains of the deep, new evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You left off at having not produced anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One of the features here is that replies are links so you can see exactly what is being referenced. In this case it is your claim to have evidence that refutes current dating methods.
quote: But you have never provided any evidence for any of your assertions like having an Australian penny radio-carbon dated or your teacher was an atheist who shortly after the alleged penny dating incident became a Christian or that the earth is about 6000 years old. So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect? Edited by jar, : appalin spallinAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Jar writes: So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect? Too much. Besides, you seem to have accepted that they are correct, is that an act of faith? Evolution was never 'proven' until they came up with the dating method.Who said it's correct? Human history, without this method, only goes back a few thousand years, civilization, genealogies, ancient runs, only go back a few thousand years. Anything before that time used to be called Pre-historic, ie not in history at all.Now "prehistoric" is considered to be fact, but is it? Here's one of the better creation websites - Is Carbon-Dating Accurate? | Radiometric dating | Rate of Decay | Clock Reset | Closed System I have my own reasons for dismissing the method, which has nothing to do with the method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer.
The fossils are fully preserved, often in an upright position in the sedimentary rock.If it took millions of years to build that layer, the fossil would have been standing in a desert for millions of years without being eroded, while slowly being covered. This pattern can be seen in each subsequent layer. It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics. If you have a pocket full of coins, the smaller coins end up down the bottom. The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time. There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years. The rejection of that cause comes from an inadequate understanding of global flood dynamics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
Increasingly silly troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Anything before that time used to be called Pre-historic, ie not in history at all. Don't you think this is referring to written, human history? Not that pre-history is not history?
Now "prehistoric" is considered to be fact, but is it? The core problem with Creationism being accepted as legitimate science is the way it handles hypothesis testing. So, how one would need to approach the age of the earth from a creationist perspective, in order to be scientific, is to state the alternate hypothesis, Ha as: "The earth is approximately 6,000 years old." The null hypothesis H0 would then be: "The earth is NOT 6,000 years old." Tests and observations would then need to be made to see if Ha is supported; for example, all carbon dated samples would return an age of < or = 6,000 years. If a carbon dated age returns as 10,000 years old, then what you would have to say is "There is not enough evidence to reject H0." One could then look for ways that carbon dating could be flawed, develop some new assumptions about it and run new tests based on the revised assumptions (using the same, or a revised H0 and Ha). But instead of approaching this issue in a scientific way (and this is an appropriate criticism, since creationists want to be accepted as legitimate science), they formulate their hypothesis testing all backwards. In other words, they state the research hypothesis as Ha "The earth is millions of years old." and H0 as "The earth is 6,000 years old." Then what they do is attach the Ha by bringing into question certain assumptions or inferences and then declare that "There is not enough evidence to reject H0 ." I assume you have had a 9th grade science class, so you should understand what I am saying here. Go back and read the article you cited in light of what I just wrote and see if that is what the author is actually doing there. Hint: It is. When people ask for "evidence" this is exactly what they are asking you and other creationists to do: support your Ha that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Attempting to bring into question the age of the earth being millions of years old and then declaring H0 of a 6,000 year old to be valid is NOT, I repeat NOT scientific. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer. ... There is hardly a place on the earth which does not reveal depositions, oceanic fossils, sedimentary layers etc. Everything is formed by flood water, wind, tectonic activities and natural erosion over a few thousand years. It might be a good idea to study some actual geology before making statements such as this. There are some good threads on this very forum where creationists made these very claims, perhaps you could look them up and judge the arguments for yourself.
The rejection of that cause comes from an inadequate understanding of global flood dynamics. There is no one on this earth that understands "global flood dynamics" since it is all made up. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : typoWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Here's one of the better creation websites - Is Carbon-Dating Accurate? | Radiometric dating | Rate of Decay | Clock Reset | Closed System
I have looked at that site and it is abject nonsense. I could spend a couple of hours explaining in detail just why that site is nonsense--I've been studying and using the C14 method for decades--but it would be a waste of time. First, you don't know enough about the subject to be worth the effort, and second, you just reject all evidence that doesn't fit your belief anyway.
I have my own reasons for dismissing the method, which has nothing to do with the method. That's because you are accepting belief and dogma even when it is contradicted by evidence.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 If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Colbard writes: Jar writes: So what evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect? Too much. Besides, you seem to have accepted that they are correct, is that an act of faith? Once again you are simply trying to Palm the Pea. What evidence do you have that shows the current dating methods are incorrect? And no, my acceptance of the current dating methods requires no faith at all.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
It is presumed that the smaller shells were older periods, and on the top we have the mammoths. This kind of settling with smaller items on the base is typical of a flood, where the water is moving while depositing. It is simple physics. These kinds of the statements are what give people the impression that creationists are idiots. Do you actually believe that mammoths on top and lizards on bottom is the kind of sorting you need to explain? Well no. What you have illustrated instead is how a pee-poor explanation looks like a work of art to an ignorant fool who knows nothing about paleontology. You were more interesting when you were pretending not to be a creationist. Now you are just a run of the mill buffoon.
The sedimentary orders are not universal, sometimes they're upside down and inconsistent depending on the forces, but all point to the fact that the layers could not have been deposited over millions of years, neither interrupted and overturned in the same time. Just what position does this BS attempt to refute anyway? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
You have managed to tell me what you think I think, and have made me and my opinions the prime subject, and yet the topic is not about me, it's about the "fountains of the deep." about which none of you have anything to contribute, so exactly why are you here? Your intellect has failed to engage, and that's not a good sign. Just calling things and people crap is too easy and does not require brains at all. If you want to come out from behind those text books and think then come forward, otherwise admit you don't know what you are doing trying to sludge a discussion before it even begins because you happen to disagree with well established ancient knowledge.
Are you here to dispute a contributor or to make a contribution? Make up your mind. Should I wait for you to get on topic, or until your knowledge comes up to par? If you have nothing to say about the fountains of the deep then I have nothing to talk about. I should not have to justify my conclusions to you if you don't have a clue about the topic, let alone how deceived you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined:
|
Pigeon chess personified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Justifying your conclusions about the fountains of the deep is the topic of this thread. I guess you'll never approach that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related. I don't believe the ancient layers in the earth with their corresponding fossils is evidence of millions of years per layer, unless there was a flood for each layer. When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3419 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes: Well, there are flood layers, a lot of them. The problem is that there are other layers between them - volcanic ash or wind-deposited sand, for example - so we know that the flood layers are not all related.When you see a pile of leaves, do you assume they were all from one giant tree? You probably accept the sensible conclusion that they came from a lot of trees. So why would you assume that all flood layers come from one flood? It's a good analogy for the flood layers. One of these days I may feel up to presenting global flood dynamics in a new thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024