Summations Only

Exactly It is ONLY the radiometric dating that shows it wrong, just one kind of evidence, and that's partly why I don't address it. There are creationists who do address it though, I just haven't studied the subject enough to follow them. Also, although the method looks consistent in the present, there is no way to know if it holds up in the past. But having only ONE kind of evidence doesn't cut it in any case.

Which are misinterpreted by the timescale paradigm just as the animals are. YOu see a different variety of tree, or a different plant, period, not a "proto" tree. Just another unwarranted application of the timescale paradigm. Utterly ridiculous. Flowers and grasses co-existed and merely got buried in different layers. The whole idea of "newer" and "older" is a wildly subjective totally unwarranted judgment. You aren't seeing "changes" at all, you are seeing different kinds of plants that your adherence to the timescale paradigm deceives you into classifying in terms of evolution.
. It didn't. The "order" is an illusion conjured up out of feverish imagination and pasted onto the physical world without justification. It's like Phrenology, as I said a while back, nothing but mental conjurings reified or taken for reality. It's like seeing patterns or meaning in tea leaves or the lines of the palm of the hand. Like a Rorschach test or formatons in clouds. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not true is it Faith? You know that there are multiple different forms of dating from independent sources that all support the same conclusion about age. You don't address it because you know that you can't.But that's not even the beginning of it. We know there was no global flood because it's not there in the geological record. We also know that there are civilisations that existed before and after the dates you insist on that were amazingly undisturbed by it. If all the animals and plants on the planet were killed at the same time, we'd find evidence of it in every genome we sequenced.Then we have the fact of evolution and the fossil record supporting it, confirmed by molecular genetics.That's before we even consider the cosmological evidence.All these different and totally independent obsevations had led every branch of science in one direction for the last 200 years.But here you are with your ancient book that no-one knows who wrote telling us what a trilobite is one day and the next how complex sedimentation processes work. With no training in any of it. None. ICANT has been explaining big physics and quantum theory to us in a similar way having never studied physics and not getting beyond high school maths. You've never even seen a trilobite have you, let alone studied one? Yet you know better than the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of world experts.You sit there at your computer simply mking stuff up without the slightest concept of what's necessary to produce a real bit of science. You have no concept that your ad hoc ideas have to fit into all the other branches of evidence not just seem to make sense on their own. So you ignore the way fossils are sorted, you ignore dating methods, you ignore the hundreds of thousands of interlinked observations that make up the real story and substitute one primitive belief.It's a feat, Faith, I'll give you that; I certainly couldn't do it. I'd be schizoid in a week.

Don't forget relative dating, and all the other methods RAZD has presented in his several long threads. So you're wrong here. But we have and they have no better arguments against the various dating methods than you do. Sure there is! You've been shown the evidence, but just reject or ignore it. There is not just "ONE kind" of evidence. That's creationist wishful thinking. There are dozens of different methods of dating beyond radiometric dating. There is a huge agreement among all of those methods. Ever hear of thermoluminescence dating? That's just one!

quote:

---

It didn't. The "order" is an illusion conjured up out of feverish imagination and pasted onto the physical world without justification. It's like Phrenology, as I said a while back, nothing but mental conjurings reified or taken for reality

---

Oh look Faith is back to denying the physical order of the fossils again.Perhaps you would like to explain why the observations of the order don’t count as sufficient justification.

They didn't recognize the abundant evidence for the Flood and they just capitulated to the idea of long ages based on some flimsy logic. Yes, there is a predictable sequence of fossils. The same creatures were buried at the same level all over the world. Something to do with how the Flood carried them. The idea that the different levels represent successive time periods is unwarranted. The human imagination is wonderful, it makes patterns out of anything. That's why some kind of experimental or empirical test is needed to save us from pure imaginative nonsense. But when it comes to the distant past there is no way to apply such tests. You cant replicate single events, all you can do is interpret them. "Looking at the evidence" was little more than imagining meaning in subjectively defined patterns, like determining that people with smaller skulls were inferior to those with larger skulls. It's just a wild subjective judgment. Hutton, who started the whole idea of enormous time frames, simply took a look at the angular uncomformity at Siccar Point, decided that it had to have been formed in stages, the lower section tilted before the upper was laid down, and concluded that it had to have taken an enormously long time to do that. IIRC he imagined it being underwater for some huge length of time, he imagined a whole series of events in the past that he could not possibly demonstrate. Just pure imagination. All an invention of his own mind. No actual science ever entered into that judgment, no experimental testing, nothing. It's ALL mental conjurings. And that too is an illusion because while it seems to be a stable method in fact there's a lot of error and there is no way to prove it actually measures time in the distant past. It seems like it SHOULD, but again imagination thinks all kinds of things are real that aren't when there is no way to subject them to a test, and there is no way to test the results of dating, you just have to believe them. The sorting is a subjective judgment reified, an illusion. Judging from the evidence -- the undisturbed strata over supposed hundreds of millions of years and the massive disturbances to the strata in blocks, I believe volcanism was triggered by one big tectonic event that split the continents, which I think happened at the end of the Flood, after all the strata were laid down. I think it is what caused the Flood to recede by changing the sea floor. I believe that tectonic event accounts for all the disturbances to the strata that we see everywhere, including the angular unconformities. That event started the continents moving apart which is what triggers volcanoes. None of this fits INTO the Flood, but followed the Flood and deformed the otherwise neatly layered world the Flood left behind. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The observed predictable physical sequence of fossils is not properly speaking an "order." The idea of an order is imposed on it by the timescale paradigm. The phrase "physical world" refers to the observed predictable physical sequence of fossils.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The observed predictable sequence of fossils is not properly speaking an "order." The idea of an order is imposed on it by the timescale paradigm.

---

No, a predictable sequence is an order. The nonsense you spout trying to deny your mistakes and contradictions.

You can use the term "order" but you'll only confuse things, because the "fossil order" is an invention of the timescale paradigm while the mere physical sequence is just random. A sequence of unrelated numbers can also be an "order" in that same sense, but not in the sense of a systematic order. I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I mean. Perhaps you can find better terminology for it because it's all a semantic problem.

And as usual you fail to explain how your magical flud could do that. Yet as usual you fail to explain how your magical flud could do that. Yet the reality is that the samples were found where they were found and as usual you fail to explain how your magical flud could do that.The Biblical Flud is a really stupid concept only believed by cult members.

quote:

---

You can use the term "order" but you'll only confuse things,

---

It’s what everyone else means so it won’t confuse anyone.

quote:

---

because the "fossil order" is an invention of the timescale paradigm while the mere physical sequence is just random

---

In other words you want to avoid the term order because it draws attention to the fact that there is a predictable sequence - and you have no adequate explanation for that fact.That isn’t confusing things at all.

quote:

---

A sequence of unrelated numbers can also be an "order" in that same sense, but not in the sense of a systematic order.

---

In fact, as I have pointed out there is strong agreement with the Linnean taxonomy so it isn’t as unsystematic as you think. A bit odd if it was by pure chance as you claim. But then, if it were by chance, ANY predictable order would be unexpected given the number of fossils.

quote:

---

I'm sure you're smart enough to know what I mean.

---

Well yes. It’s pretty obvious that you are engaging in one of your usual dishonest attempts to minimise or suppress evidence for our position, aggravated by your usual attempts to deny the fact that you don’t have a coherent position on the subject.

And suppositional dating and ...The Biblical Flud as anything other than story is a concept peculiar to a few Christian and Muslim Cults.

She does not and cannot comprehend how radiometric methods differ in their principles but not in their results.

No, its a religious problem.As you've stated many times, you can't accept any evidence not supported by your interpretation of the bible.You are pushing a very narrow brand of religious apologetics, and it would be best if you remembered that. You're certainly not doing science--more the opposite.Perhaps if you ended each post with, "Amen!" it would help you remember this.

The other methods of dating take you no further back than 10,000 years, such as tree rings.