Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 2:19 AM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004

Message 211 of 217 (155328)
11-02-2004 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by jar
11-02-2004 10:54 PM

Re: Tar pits???
I know this is a stretch, but is it possible there is some confusion between the tar pits and the theory that the dinosaur extinction was caused by huge lava flows initiating global climate change ?

The confusion is something like :

  • Tar pits are sometimes referred to as carnivore traps
  • The source of the lava flows are known as the deccan traps
  • There is a theory that the extinction of the dinosaurs was gradual and due to climate change caused by said lava
  • WT doesn't seem to have the greatest grasp of science and loves word links (red tape - the best yet )
Like I say, I know it's a stretch...

Confused ? You will be...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 11-02-2004 10:54 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by jar, posted 11-02-2004 11:54 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 214 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-03-2004 1:47 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 212 of 217 (155333)
11-02-2004 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by MangyTiger
11-02-2004 11:30 PM

Re: Tar pits???
I am willing to believe that WILLOWTREE can misunderstand anything. But he's claiming that he went to the La Brea Tar Pits. That's reasonable since just about every school kid in the LA Basin will have a trip to the tar pits. They are a wonderous place. The hills around are dotted with the booms of oil wells, those offshore are desguised to look like tropical islands. The pits look more like a lake, amazingly harmless. It's easy to imagine people, mamouths and saber tooth tigers wandering into them, becoming trapped and drowning.

But the displays there are very clear. They involve animals, mammals, not dinosaurs. The La Brea Tar Pits didn't even exist when the dinosaurs were around.

From the home page of the Page Museum

The Page Museum is located at the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits in the heart of Los Angeles. Rancho La Brea is one of the world’s most famous fossil localities, recognized for having the largest and most diverse assemblage of extinct Ice Age plants and animals in the world. Visitors can learn about Los Angeles as it was between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago, during the last Ice Age, when animals such as saber-toothed cats and mammoths roamed the Los Angeles Basin.

The other possibility is that he may have attended one of the sessions held regularly at the Tar Pits on general fossil themes. They do hold sessions on dinosaurs there. But the dinosaurs were not from the Tar Pit. They would be from some other location, some other era.

The reference to the Red Hand and Red Tape is yet another example of WILLOWTREE simply not being able to read and understand the source. He cannot read and understand the Bible any more than any other source. As an example, he believes that the questions I ask are trick or loaded questions. They're not. They are simply the basics of how dating is done.

If he is not capable of understanding even the simple examples laid out here, if he is not capable of adding up the miles in the LLM, if he is incapable of reading the Bible, how can we expect him to understand what the tour guides tell him?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by MangyTiger, posted 11-02-2004 11:30 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003

Message 213 of 217 (155341)
11-03-2004 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2004 10:37 PM

No reason to bother then is there
Since everything you're told is a lie there is no reason to reply to you any more is there?

You make claims about the dishonesty of evos but can't support it other than with made up claims.

Then you, with your own words, demonstrate your own dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2004 10:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Posts: 3725
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2

Message 214 of 217 (155344)
11-03-2004 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by MangyTiger
11-02-2004 11:30 PM

Decan Traps (off-topic side comment)
I haven't followed this topic close enough to have a clue of what the tar pits have to do with this topic.

Now, consulting my geological dictionary, the volcanics definition of "traps":

Trap in the Dutch language signifies stairs, a staircase. In basaltic lava fields a remarkable steplike or terracelike appearance is observable. This configuration is due to the abrupt terminations of the successive flows.

So, "traps" is just a geomorphological discription of basaltic volcanics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by MangyTiger, posted 11-02-2004 11:30 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3

Message 215 of 217 (155347)
11-03-2004 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object
11-02-2004 10:52 PM

Willowtree, Genesis 38:28 does not mention a "Red Hand" emblem.

So your quote does not support your claim. Therefore denying your claim shows no lack of integrity. You would have to show very strong evidence before you could honestly make such an accusation.

Quiote frankly your whole attitude seems to be that anyone who dares to disagree with you must be slandered. I am amazed that the admins have tolerated your vile behaviour this far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-02-2004 10:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003

Message 216 of 217 (155362)
11-03-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Cold Foreign Object
11-01-2004 9:53 PM

9) Re: Scientific Circles (Message 127):

Milton's point (page 47):

"Argon 40 is a very common isoptope. Argon is the 12th most abundant chemical element on Earth and more than 99 percent is argon 40.

There is no physical or chemical way to tell whether any given sample of argon 40 is the residue of radioactive decay or was present in the rocks when they formed. Moreover, as argon is an inert gas that will not react with any other element, its atoms will always be trapped in the crystal structures of minerals whether it is radiogenic in origin or not.

So, if radiogenic argon 40 is like "a bird in a cage", then it is a cage that already contains birds of the same feather, from which it is indistinguishable." END MILTON QUOTE.

The above evidence went completely unchallenged.

For from having gone unchallenged, I completely refuted it.

Let me repeat the two main points. The study did not return datings of the lavas that were all over the place: the lava was dated and duly returned a zero age date (correct given the age of the sample and the accuracy of the test). What it did do was produce datings for the inclusions (unmelted rocks carried along with the lava) that were inconsistent with each other. Conclusion: as theory had predicted, inclusions cannot be used to date the underlying rock. Unfortunate, but no problem for radio-isotope dating.

However, that was not my main point.

This was that Milton misrepresented the study. In short, he lied about the results.

This was that had Milton read the study - or even read the title of the study, he would have know this. He therefore could not make the claim that the study supported his conclusion that radio-isotope daing was unreliable, for the study came to almost the oppoiste conclusion - that it was reliable, except in certain easily recognisable circumstances. So, if he had read the study he lied about its conclusions.

If he had not read the study, but merely did a typical creationists cut-and-paste, he lied by implication, because he would have had no way of knowing if the study supported or did not support his views.

It is this latter point that you have totally failed to address by merely restating your initial position.

For Whigs admit no force but argument.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-01-2004 9:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 217 of 217 (155450)
11-03-2004 11:37 AM

Thread copied to the Dating Methodology and its Associated Assumptions thread in the Boot Camp forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019