Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Flood Geology: A Thread For Portillo
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 343 of 503 (680237)
11-18-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Granny Magda
11-18-2012 4:58 PM


Re: Bones and the flood
Hi Granny Magda,
3) Your fantasy about dating mistakes depends is simply naive. Let me remind you; the oldest human fossils are only tens of thousands of years old. The P-T event was 252 million years ago! Geologists do not make that kind of mistake. It is simply absurd. Your fantasy depends on an entire profession being composed of incompetent imbeciles. Geologists are not imbeciles. You are not smarter than them. Don't be so arrogant.
And below this boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade.
One could argue that specific species may not have been found, but a whole clade like mammals? All we see are precursors (ancestors), not one mammal.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Granny Magda, posted 11-18-2012 4:58 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Granny Magda, posted 11-18-2012 6:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 370 of 503 (680502)
11-19-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 4:24 PM


dating accuracy issues
Hi mindspawn,
If they can re-date the Appalachians by 120 million years due to a single geological find, nothing is set in stone (excuse the pun). In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct.
Would you agree that the dates for the Appalachians (or at least part of them) are more accurate now than before?
Does this correction in the Appalachians significantly affect dates of other mountain formations?
Is this not how science works, by updating information whenever new information shows that previous information was invalid?
... In the light of dating errors, it would be naive for anyone to always believe currently assumed dates are correct. ...
Can you explain the correlations between dates derived by different methods?
See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for examples of correlations that are used to validate the different methodologies.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 4:24 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 5:21 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 11-19-2012 10:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 374 of 503 (680514)
11-19-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 5:21 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
Hi again mindspawn
exactly! I like this about science. ...
So every time information is updated we get closer to the truth, yes?
... But this means that little is set in stone, if geologists can be so very way out.
There is a large difference between the tentativity of conclusion based on the best information available at the time and conclusions that are wild assumptions.
Sometimes a few dates correlate. Sometimes they do not. Some dating methods are calibrated based on assumed dates of other dating methods and therefore will correlate due to the rate being established like that. The exact measurements of before and after isotopic quantities when measuring rates is not readily available to the public so even the original measurements are not clear. Neither is the size of those sample given, a smaller sample would deteriate slower than a larger sample. What was the size of the sample in laboratory rate measurements?
Rather than just assert things like this, why don't you take a whack at explaining the correlations provided in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 5:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 5:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 378 of 503 (680522)
11-19-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by mindspawn
11-19-2012 5:50 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
Hi again mindspawn
exactly! without a lot of information you can easily make big mistakes. 120 million year mistakes.
But is this kind of error (which I take on faith at this point btw) frequent or rare? How much information is sufficient to make an educated estimate?
Haha, I asked a question first? Without answering you have pointed me to a whole thread. What was the size of the samples used when they established the rates?
No, you first asserted that you had issues with dating methodology. This was the second time I suggested you should look at that thread and see what you can explain. Your previous response was to ask a question rather than to go to that thread.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2012 5:50 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:59 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 408 of 503 (680583)
11-20-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Percy
11-19-2012 10:04 PM


Re: dating accuracy issues
HI Percy
There has been no correction in the age of the Appalachians. MindSpawn got this misimpression from a lay-press science article he cited in Message 294, Geologists Find New Origins Of Appalachian Mountains.
Thanks, I had wondered if his claim was true, but didn't have the time to check.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 11-19-2012 10:04 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 411 of 503 (680590)
11-20-2012 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 1:24 AM


turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Hi again mindspawn,
There was no mis-impression at all. The article itself is pretty clear as are the quotes from Damian Nance , professor of Geological Science at Ohio University. University publications from 2006 agree with that article I quoted:
http://www.ohio.edu/...ommunications/appalachian_origins.cfm
The article is very clear that they are talking about dates for a rock outcropping in southern Mexico and that they are NOT redating the Appalachian Mountains in the US -- as your posts have implied.
The article is also very clear in stating that the difference is due to new information regarding this particular outcropping of rock in Mexico, making it a later addition to the Appalachian system, rather than a part of the NA Cordillera, as previously assumed:
quote:
... the North American Cordillera. The Cordillera is a continuous sequence of mountain ranges that includes the Rocky Mountains. It stretches from Alaska to Mexico and continues into South America.
For the past decade, geologists have collected information from Mexico’s Acatln Complex, a rock outcropping the size of Massachusetts. As they uncovered each new piece of data from the complex, evidence contradicting earlier assumptions about the origins of that part of Mexico emerged.
Evidence collected by Nance and his colleagues from rocks in the Acatln Complex shows that its collision with Laurussia actually occurred about 120 million years later. The rocks once existed on an ancient ocean floor, but this ocean has proven to be the Rheic, not Iapetus as previously thought.
Also note that this in no way changes the ages of the rocks in the US Appalachian system, rather what changes is the understanding of when the plate tectonics caused mountain formation.
This is NOT a correction of age measurements at all.
When rocks form and when mountains form are two distinctly different things.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 1:24 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by foreveryoung, posted 11-21-2012 12:11 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 423 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:08 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 413 of 503 (680593)
11-20-2012 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by mindspawn
11-20-2012 2:59 AM


understanding age measurements
Hi again mindspawn,
My guess is frequent. But I really don't know. ...
So your guess is completely uninformed and based on your biased opinions rather than on any review of empirical objective data. It's a WAG (wild-ass guess).
As we see in Message 411 there was no error in the rock dating measurements at all, nor any correction of date measurements in your source, rather the change is in the understanding of when tectonic forces were in action in the formation of mountains, specifically in southern Mexico.
... I get the impression that a lot of conclusions about the past are based on flimsy evidence , but that's just an impression I am getting.
Curiously, science is based on evaluation of the best information we have available. Sometimes that information is incomplete due to gaps in the evidence available, and when any new information becomes available to fill those gaps -- as we see here in southern Mexico -- then there is either the possibility of confirming previous thought or of changing previous thought -- as we see here on the timing of the movement of tectonic plates in this area.
It is fine to be skeptical, but you then need to investigate, to research the information, to see if your cursory impressions match fact..
So again, perhaps it is time for you to actually investigate this, and you can start by reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Fair enough, I guess I am getting more ready to tackle that thread as this one is drawing to a close (getting a bit repetitive here at the moment)
This thread is also over 400 posts long and should be put into summary and conclusion mode soon.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2012 2:59 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 433 of 503 (680858)
11-21-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by foreveryoung
11-21-2012 12:11 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Hi foreveryoung,
When mountains form, they can change one kind of a rock into another. They can take flat layered rocks and turn them into folded layers or they can fault them. The rocks that are in mountains are generally not in the same condition that they were before the mountain building event.
Indeed, and the heat\pressures involved that fold layers also can change the physical properties of the rock. This is where creationist comments about layers run into trouble: folding rock layers without the heat and pressure doesn't work, nor does folding layers of sediment before it is transformed into rock. These then become time dependent processes that cannot occur via a simplistic flood explanation.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by foreveryoung, posted 11-21-2012 12:11 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by foreveryoung, posted 11-21-2012 11:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 434 of 503 (680859)
11-21-2012 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by mindspawn
11-21-2012 3:08 AM


Re: turns out there is no correction to age measurements
Hi mindspawn,
I'm curious why they did not already have radioactive dates for that Acatlan Complex? ...
Possibly because it is expensive to do, and they thought they had a good idea of what had happened.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by mindspawn, posted 11-21-2012 3:08 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 476 of 503 (687797)
01-16-2013 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by Granny Magda
01-16-2013 10:49 AM


Re: Bones and the flood
A bit of anecdotal evidence ...
... Also, I notice that you omitted this bit, the bit that comes right after your quote ends;
quote:
There is debate as to whether the black shales indicate anoxic conditions in the deep ocean waters or whether these conditions existed only in the sediments themselves.
Uh-huh. Can't imagine why you missed that out...
Here in New England we dig a lot of clams. Steamers are generally (best) found in anoxic conditions, where the mud\sand is black from the lack of oxygen and it smells like sulfurous compounds -- in spite of the fact that the ocean flows over the mud flats at high tide with waters populated with fish and other oxygen consuming organisms.
Such black mud flats would become black shale, without the ocean be anoxic.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Granny Magda, posted 01-16-2013 10:49 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 487 of 503 (687890)
01-17-2013 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by mindspawn
01-17-2013 2:49 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues -- challenged
1) radiometric dating (does have scientific backing, but too many assumptions and also a head in the sand approach)
Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.
Not one. Most don't even try, because the information is too consilient and they do not have any model to explain correlations from the pseudoscientists.
There are basically two valid conclusions from the evidence:
  1. all objective evidence is illusion and nothing is known (including the existence of god/s, bibles, etc) or
  2. the objective evidence is due to the actual age of the earth.
Here is your challenge: explain the correlations, or stop talking about errors in dating as if that made a young earth possible.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by mindspawn, posted 01-17-2013 2:49 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 01-18-2013 6:44 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 492 of 503 (688003)
01-18-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by mindspawn
01-18-2013 6:44 AM


Re: dating accuracy issues -- challenged
Hi mindspawn
I have deliberately avoided this topic in this thread because of all the side issues it creates, and there have already been too many side issues. ...
And this thread is nearing conclusion, however the invitation was to post on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread, not here.
See Message 220 for remainder of my reply
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mindspawn, posted 01-18-2013 6:44 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by mindspawn, posted 01-21-2013 1:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 503 of 503 (688282)
01-21-2013 4:21 PM


Summary, mostly about ages
I can summarize my participation on this thread with these quotes:
Message 343: And below this (P-T) boundary we are not missing just fossils of humans, but of the whole mammal clade.
Message 374: Rather than just assert things like this, why don't you take a whack at explaining the correlations provided in Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
Message 413: As we see in Message 411 there was no error in the rock dating measurements at all, nor any correction of date measurements in your source, rather the change is in the understanding of when tectonic forces were in action in the formation of mountains, specifically in southern Mexico.
Curiously, science is based on evaluation of the best information we have available. Sometimes that information is incomplete due to gaps in the evidence available, and when any new information becomes available to fill those gaps -- as we see here in southern Mexico -- then there is either the possibility of confirming previous thought or of changing previous thought -- as we see here on the timing of the movement of tectonic plates in this area.
It is fine to be skeptical, but you then need to investigate, to research the information, to see if your cursory impressions match fact..
So again, perhaps it is time for you to actually investigate this, and you can start by reading Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Message 487: Curiously, we do not need to use radiometric dating to know that the earth is very old -- much older than any "young earth" concept.
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Not one young earth creationist has explained these correlation in the nine years since it was posted here.
Not one. Most don't even try, because the information is too consilient and they do not have any model to explain correlations from the pseudoscientists.
There are basically two valid conclusions from the evidence:
  1. all objective evidence is illusion and nothing is known (including the existence of god/s, bibles, etc) or
  2. the objective evidence is due to the actual age of the earth.
Here is your challenge: explain the correlations, or stop talking about errors in dating as if that made a young earth possible.
While it may not seem that this continual reference to evidence for an old earth is not directly related to the topic, many of the methods for measuring age listed would have been interrupted by a flood and would have clearly -- and consistently -- marked when that would have occurred.
This covers several hundred thousand years, well beyond any known YEC scenario. That there is no such interference in the chronologies, means that the flood did not occur in their time span. In other words, this is empirical evidence that no world wide flood occurred within the last several hundred thousand years.
Note: mindspawn has again been invited to participate on the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread in both Message 220 and Message 224.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : last line added as no more replies allowed

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024