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

Mr Huxley explained that for you in the link I gave in post #70. He wrote that in 1868. The short answer: because it is the product of millions of years of deposition of coccoliths.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

The experiment is irrelevant, because it doesn't reproduce the conditions under which the sand dunes actually would have formed underwater. Sand waves are formed during large storms or amplified tides, for example, and unless your experiment reproduces these conditions, how can you claim it is representative of anything ?Add on to that the fact that when we observe present-day sand waves, they can easily have an angle of 25degrees (with in some situation 30 degrees)Just a moment...Coupled with the fact that sand dunes produce an angle of 34degrees, not 25, and I am befuddled by the fact you still cling on to any of this because of your unpublished back-yard experiment.

What dating methods did they use to determine the extent and timing of these glaciation periods? Or are they simply asserted to have happened without any evidence whatsoever? Can you please describe the conditions under which hundreds of feet of coccoliths can be formed in a single year? How does a flood produce enough little coccolithophorids to stack up hundreds of feet in a single year. Not only that, but how did these supposed raging flood waters calm themselves for the extent of time needed for these tiny little creatures to settle out with hardly any contamination from large conglomerate flood deposits? You should be asking why it looks like the product of millions of years of deposition. Perhaps there are valid reasons for coming to this conclusion.

Do you find tracks from air breathing animals in these sand waves? Are the quartz particles in these sand waves frosted like they are in modern wind blown sand dunes? What is the sediment makeup of these sand waves compared to sand dunes, and how does each compare to the Cocconino sandstones?More in general, what type of geologic formation would NOT be consistent with this supposed recent global flood? Can you describe any geologic formation that would inconsistent with flooding?

Make a new thread about it, or find an existing one so we can discuss it over there.This is all off-topic here.AbE. Just to make sure. There are answers to all these questions.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I did have one post with on-topic comments.You claim that post flood glaciation is part of the creationist model. So how do creationists date the extent and age of these glaciation events, or are they just asserted to have existed without any evidence as to the extent and age?

Not to pile on, but how would a YEC dating technique of any kind take into account the change in the duration of the day as revealed in studying ancient corals?

Hi Zub. A hearty welcome to EvC from a long time dyed in the wool ID Biblical (literalist) creationist.Here's the deal. The reason I've been arguing for rejecting conventional dating methodology is that the earth and atmosphere was significantly different than post flood.The implications of all preflood data in the Biblical record indicate a vapor canopy like atmosphere which was likely much larger, extending further into what is now space, the warmer close to earth layers of it effecting expansion into space, consisting a significant more volumn of H2O etc.The elements of both living things and atmosphere would not have been consistent with post flood.The lifespan of man, size of animals and other phenomena was, according to the Biblical record significantly different than post flood. Some evidence of tropical life in the arctics os observable, lending support to this vapor canopy.In short, sudden catastrophy. the magnitude of what is described in the Biblical record is not conducive to accomodate modern dating methodology.It is not entirely knowable as to the pre-flood earth and atmosphere, but for sure, it would not be sufficiently uniform to accomodate much of the conventional dating methodology.My bone of contention is as applicable to the conventional YEC hypothesis premise as it is to the evolutionist one. A literal rendering of Genesis one is not compatible with the six millennium earth age. This is a different topic but it has been hashed over in past threads.So perhaps my answer to your question would be yes, ID creationists would need a different dating methodology. I'm not sure whether there is enough known or enough to be assumed about the pre-flood earth and atmosphere to implement such a methology.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

You forgot to mention that you have never provided evidence of the imaginary vapor canopy nor have you given an explanation as to how all the various dating methods are wrong and yet still agree with each other.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Buz, you have never presented any evidence supporting that assertion and you have been shown evidence that absolutely refutes the Biblical Flood.When you continue to claim the Biblical Flood ever happened you simply show that you are being willfully ignorant or downright dishonest.

---

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

I don't know about the conventional creationist models depict relative to glaciation, but the Buzsaw model would depict no glaciation period perse. The flood waters would have been relatively warm globally post flood, the poles eventually freezing subquently to the receeding of the flood waters but not to the extent of implementing a glacial period perse. In fact, the equator temperate zone would have been as hot as it is presently and the only glaciation would have been at the poles, not extending into the more temperate zones of the planet.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This should not be a problem, because the evidence shows there was no global flood as described in the bible.What you are doing is equivalent of claiming to get 500 mpg in your car because of the sssckdkdz factor. The sssckdkdz factor, of course, doesn't exist. And, just as we can determine the actual fuel mileage in your car and thus disprove the sssckdkdz factor, we can determine whether there was a global flood or not in historic times. This is not rocket science. Even my own archaeological research is sufficient to show that the flood never happened as described. It's so easy almost anyone can do it!If creationists want to base a dating method on the flood and it's effects, or on the sssckdkdz factor, they will have to present evidence that either of these things exists first. In the case of the flood this will be difficult, as the early creationist geologists, seeking to document the flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.

---

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

Your "bone of contention" is that you consider yourself an "ID creationist" which flies in the face of creationism AND IDism........ I'm not even sure you know what side you play for. As for the rest of the drivel in your post: that's all meaningless BuzSpeak. It's meaningless. You've never provided evidence for anything other than your ignorance. You don't even speak English half the time and you claim to be some great patriot. Juan down the block speaks more proper English than you, Buz.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Jar and Jones, an assumed flood premise and pre-flood Biblical premise clearly implicates a vapor canopy. This thread is not the place to debate the flood or the vapor canopy.My point was to show why such a premise would not be compatible with conventional dating data.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

Then present the evidence that will allow an accurate alternate dating method or show how any of your imagined Pre-Flood conditions would effect the conventional dating methods.

---

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