Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time.

Oh, I'm here every day

And I would love for you to do a RAZD like correlations thread or post.

slevesque writes: Read my very first post in this thread, to see how this ocean salinity issue fits in the whole web of things. I never pretended that this was a dating technique that could be applied on a wide range of things.

Others are addressing the issue of fitting into a 'whole web of things'. I won't join the pile. I was just confirming that you had not proposed a dating technique. That is after all the topic of the thread.

Maybe if you stay here long enough, and discuss with the right approach you will be able to see how I explain all the pieces fit into a recent flood model. But to do this, we just have to discuss each piece at a time.

Are you willing to specify a date for the global flood?

Something discrete? Something that does not float in time between about 3,000 years ago and the Cambrian and beyond?

Then we can discuss dating that event, and the methods creationists might use.

---

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

I could probably try and find if the answer can be found in the creationist litterature.

This may be a bit off-topic, but I want to rant a bit, indulge me.

Doesn't the "creationist literature" seem a bit forced, even to you?

Let me explain what I mean. To an actualist like myself, nothing is more simple and straightforward than sedimentology. Those things that look like lithified flaser deposits? They're lithified flaser deposits. The things that look eactly like lithified sand dunes? They're lithified sand dunes. The things that look exactly like lithified varves of proglacial lakes? They're lithified varves of proglacial lakes. The rocks that look just like welded tuff? They are welded tuff. The stuff that looks exactly like glacial moraines? Those would be glacial moraines. Chalk looks exactly like the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths, and I have an explanation for that. It is the product of millions of years deposition of coccoliths.

And you guys want to explain this by one singular event. All these things are somehow consequences of your imaginary magic flood.

Don't you yourself find this attitude rather difficult?

Let's do another analogy. Walking through the Serengeti, I notice the footprints of lions and zebras and elephants and so forth. I determine that these are the footprints of elephants and so forth. I see that what I identify as the footprints of elephants are the exact same shape as the feet of elephants. I note that the stride length of these footprints are exactly consistent with the stride length of elephants. I watch elephants walk, and look at the footprints they leave, and I see that these impressions are exactly the same as those that I see in the Serengeti. I do the same with the footprints of the zebras and the lions and the giraffes.

Then some man comes up to me and states that despite all this, these footprints were left by one single animal that no-one has ever seen.

This man is a creationist.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Take a look at the threads Salt of the Earth (on salt domes and beds), How to make sand and Exploring the Grand Canyon, from the bottom up.

Unfortunately, the people that you trust are simply counting on your continued ignorance. The facts though are that all they do is withhold information, try to keep you ignorant.

As one Christian speaking to another, those that claim to be scientists are just not telling you all the facts. I hate to say it but it sure looks like all they want is that continued gold from folk like you.

---

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

DA writes: Walking through the Serengeti, I notice the footprints of lions and zebras and elephants and so forth. I determine that these are the footprints of elephants and so forth.

So you dismiss the idea that cheeky Ewoks were intentionally making these footprints in order to fool gullible human beings such as yourself?

Until you falsify the Ewok hypothesis you have no argument.

I'm still waiting for details on creationists' dating techniques.

Jumping to the middle of the book, I just love the way creationist websites publish articles by "experts" who calibrate their radiocarbon dates with reference to the global flood. To make everything come out the way they believe, they pull the hat out of the rabbit and fudge their calibrations based on some imagined property of the flood. And it's not always the same property!

Unfortunately for the "experts" these properties, and the flood itself, are all imaginary.

Any creationists want to jump in here? Or do we know the creationist literature better than you folks do?

---

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

I'll dig back up my old thread and answer this over there.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I think you are exagerating this to the point it becomes clear strawman.

Glacial moraines are glacial moraines in the creationist litterature, for example. Some other geological features vary slghtly in their interpretation; sand dunes are explained to be underwater sand dunes.

And also, note that their is also a bit of a circular reasoning in all this. Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe this is how it forms in the first place.

The reality is, had you not have any preconceived notions on how chalk forms, this particular explanation certainly wouldn't jump at you when you would look at chalk for the first time. It would simply look like chalk, and who knows if after examination you would have arrived at the same conclusion as the one you have now.

sand dunes are explained to be underwater sand dunes.

I've challenged many creationists on this board to do this very simple experiment, and to report the results back to the EvC community:

Get a glass pie plate, a protractor, and some sand. Make a pile of sand in the plate, and measure the maximum angle of the cone that dry sand can make.

Repeat the experiment, but making a cone os sand under water, as it would necessarily be in a Global Flood.

Compare angles in in-the-air and in-the-water cases. Look at buried dunes in geology, say, in the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. Report those angles back to us, too.

The reality is, had you not have any preconceived notions on how chalk forms, this particular explanation certainly wouldn't jump at you when you would look at chalk for the first time.

T H Huxley put the lie to that before my grandfather was born. Read "On a Piece of Chalk" here:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE8/Chalk.html

Glacial moraines are glacial moraines in the creationist litterature, for example.

Creationists admit that?

Could you quote them? --- I could do with a laugh right now.

And also, note that their is also a bit of a circular reasoning in all this. Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe this is how it forms in the first place.

Because we can measure the rate of deposition of calcareous ooze.

The reality is, had you not have any preconceived notions on how chalk forms, this particular explanation certainly wouldn't jump at you when you would look at chalk for the first time. It would simply look like chalk, and who knows if after examination you would have arrived at the same conclusion as the one you have now.

When you invent my opinions for me, I know for certain that you're wrong. I might be wrong about anything else, but I am definitely right about why I hold the opinions that I hold. It's my brain. They're my opinions. The reasoning by which I know those opinions is known to me. And, apparently, not to you.

sand dunes are explained to be underwater sand dunes.

I would like to hear this explanation as well. How does water produce sand dunes with faces 40 degrees to horizontal? How do you explain the frosting of the quartz in the dunes that is only now seen in windblown sand dunes? How do you explain the well preserved air breathing animal tracks?

I've challenged many creationists on this board to do this very simple experiment, and to report the results back to the EvC community: Get a glass pie plate, a protractor, and some sand. Make a pile of sand in the plate, and measure the maximum angle of the cone that dry sand can make. Repeat the experiment, but making a cone os sand under water, as it would necessarily be in a Global Flood. Compare angles in in-the-air and in-the-water cases. Look at buried dunes in geology, say, in the Coconino Sandstone in the Grand Canyon. Report those angles back to us, too.

Of course, and we have discussed this once before, remember ? I had given you a link which had the angle of repose of wet sand at 25 degrees, the exact angle the coconino sand dunes are at. (While desert sand dunes would produce angles of 34 degrees)

I also referenced you a secular geologist who used the angle discrepency in that sandstone to argue for an underwater formation.

Visher, G.S., 1990. Exploration Stratigraphy, 2nd edition, Penn Well Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma, pp. 211–213.

Yet you still think your own back-yrd experiment trumps all this ? really ?

If you still want to discuss this, make a new thread and I'll join in.

Creationists admit that? Could you quote them? --- I could do with a laugh right now.

Creationist models have always had a gliciation period following the flood. Nothing new here I think.

Because we can measure the rate of deposition of calcareous ooze.

A rate which can vary with changing conditions. But I'll reformulate my phrase to make my point more explicit I guess:

Why does Chalk look like the product of milions of years of deposition of coccoliths, if not for the fact that you already believe it needs millions of years to form in the first place.

the angle of repose of wet sand at 25 degrees

Wet sand and subaqueous sand are not the same. Do the freakin' experiment!