Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic - Parallel Thread

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yes and I have shown you one. "

​

--Where at? And if you have, why is it impossible to know its age?

---

TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this.

quote:

---

"You cannot however, support the assertion that it is a 1 billion year old soil... If you ever took the time to study geology you would understand this."

​

--Sounds like you have the data which says that it isn't? I'd like to see it, since you have so much confidence that this is 'yet another' opportunity to show that I don't know anything about my geology right?

---

I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire.

quote:

---

--You seem to enjoy attempting this at times.

---

I don't think that 'attempting' is quite the right word here.

quote:

---

--No mater the age of the paleosol whether it be 1Ga, or 700Mya, my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.

---

True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths.

quote:

---

B: "2. Quit it with the jargon. I am not impressed by your technical terms, and most laymen would not even understand them. If you must use your flashy geology buzzwords to boost your confidence, then have the curtesy to define what you mean by them, so there are no misunderstandings. In a non-technical forum like this, they are best avoided altogether."

​

TC: --I'm sorry if you don't understand the terminology. Do you know what a laymen is? Its a non-scientist, so I have no idea what your trying to say there.

---

To be truthful here, TC, you do not know the terminology all that well either. You have simply goaded Buddika into an area in which you have done some reading and he has not."What a laymen is????"

quote:

---

--Why should I define them? Its simple geologic terminology, maybe you should read an 'earth science' textbook before you engage in such a debate.

---

Oops, have I heard this before?

quote:

---

You have obviously indicated you don't know much on the subject of geology, indicative by your lame appeals to parroting links in hopes that they will have the refutation. You don't even understand what is included in half of the links you parrot it seems.

---

Sorry, TC, but you have done no better.

I know the terminology from which I have spoken in the thread very well. Of which he has shown he knows little to nothing. Can you support your assertion that I am doing no better than Buddika? Please don't tell me that he is actually being reasonable... You are reading the posts are you not? They are utterly ridiculous.--Unfortunately I just got finished throwing off some steam at the weight bench from accidentally deleting the content in the reply box for summarizing his inconsistencies in his last post about 3/4th the way through. Very little of it has any credibility to it and is not resultant from great misunderstandings of geologic principles and concepts which he has not grasped and shows no desire to in the future.
--I mean sure, even if the global flood is easily falsified by various observations, he has not done a good job at it even in its littlest degree.------------------

"TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this. "
--I understand all of this. I can agree that my initial representation of it as being a 1 Ga is a large summarization, but that doesn't defeat my initial arguments regarding the paleosol. What you've explained here is a story without data. Its what do you call it, A 'just so' story. Whether it is 'preferred', or not, simply isn't good enough."I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire."
--I haven't acquired it in the same setting as you have[et. college lectures], but it has been acquired from the many initiatives of mine regarding geochronology."True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths. "
--My analysis was compltely free from references to creationist material so this isn't applicable.--I also sensed from your last post that you apparently see that my age is quite easily indicative by my posting content? I was just wondering that since all 16 year olds know what I know about geology or even biology for that matter, you could direct me to where I could find some? They would be great for additions to an organization me and a friend recently founded at http://www.oysi.promisoft.net its neutral so the POV is of no significance. The only bias is a bias in favour of good information.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:I know the terminology from which I have spoken in the thread very well.

---

Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages? Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'

quote:

---

Of which he has shown he knows little to nothing. Can you support your assertion that I am doing no better than Buddika? Please don't tell me that he is actually being reasonable... You are reading the posts are you not? They are utterly ridiculous.

---

I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about.

quote:

---

--I mean sure, even if the global flood is easily falsified by various observations, he has not done a good job at it even in its littlest degree.

---

That was not my point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC, when a process (such as soil devlopment) is truncated by another process (such as the deposition of beach sands), the only thing you can say about the age of the original process is that it is no younger than the process that truncated it. This is a dating method. It is a relative dating method. If a soil is overlain by the Lamotte Sand, then we can only say that it is older than deposition of the Lamotte if only by a short period. The other thing we can say is that if the soil is developed on Proterozoic rocks it must be at least somewhat younger than the substrate that it exists on, especially since an unknown amount of material must have been eroded from those rocks. Okay, this gives you a range of ages. However, since we know that soils continually develop and are slowly washed away by wind, water and soil creep, the younger age would be far more likely. Furthermore, since there is a hiatus in the geological record, one might also assume or suggest the possiblility that there might have been several erosional events and that several soil horizons might have developed and eroded away at this location and only the youngest one preserved. I don't know how much more clear I can be on this. "

quote:

---

--I understand all of this. I can agree that my initial representation of it as being a 1 Ga is a large summarization, but that doesn't defeat my initial arguments regarding the paleosol. What you've explained here is a story without data. Its what do you call it, A 'just so' story. Whether it is 'preferred', or not, simply isn't good enough.

---

It was not my point to provide data. It was my point to show that your scenario was logically erroneous and did not consider some very important possibilities (you might say that your statement was a 'just-so' story). So, what you said was that the soil remained in-place for a Ga... no transport, no erosion, and no continuos development of new soil. Does this really sound plausible to you?

quote:

---

"I have an understanding of relative dating and geological processes which you have not had the opportunity to acquire."

​

--I haven't acquired it in the same setting as you have[et. college lectures], but it has been acquired from the many initiatives of mine regarding geochronology.

---

RRRight!

quote:

---

"True, but it does expose your lack of understanding of basic processes and suggests that you are easily swayed by professional creationists and popular myths. "

​

--My analysis was compltely free from references to creationist material so this isn't applicable.

---

Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias.

"Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages?¹ Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'²"
--[1] - We settled this back where this 'inconsistency' started, in the paleosols thread (which I will continue when I get my comp problems and make progress on my current projects) and mainly in this post:http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols--I would still very much like to see what you have to say about this 'certain age' phenomenon.
--[2] - This was also settled, in situ means in place of origin or deposition, you just have to read it in context. As I used it in my context, it could have been both. In the context of Yuretich, I never argued that he probably meant it as a place of deposition. That would have been a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding never occurred."I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about."
--What do you mean 'but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about'? All I am doing in that thread is showing myself and the board for my own satisfaction (though I am fully open for a deeper delve into a geologic discussion, it just hasn't happened yet and apparently should not be expected) that his arguments against flood geomechanics are foolish and that him saying that 'he knows' the flood couldn't happen is just an argument from his personal incredulity[thus void of credibility]."It was not my point to provide data. It was my point to show that your scenario was logically erroneous and did not consider some very important possibilities (you might say that your statement was a 'just-so' story). So, what you said was that the soil remained in-place for a Ga... no transport, no erosion, and no continuos development of new soil. Does this really sound plausible to you?"
--True, I can admit to this. Basically it was an attempt similar to Joz's back in post #4 here. An attempt at having you address it after seeing it as insignificant for a couple posts."Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias."
--What do you mean? Mainstream scientists do have a bias, and that bias is the 'mainstream bias'. I don't know what would be wrong with saying that, I have a Young Earth bias, you have an old earth bias. My recent readings out of The origin and evolution of the Solar system - Woolfson, 2000, supports that there is a tendency for scientists to attempt to avoid adaptation to new theories which are effective at altering comprehensive theories in science. Not only is it indicative in the text, it was directly admitted.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Oh, you mean where you said that geochronologists never use the term 'apparent' when talking about radiometric ages?¹ Or when you stated that 'in-place' really means 'might have been transported?'²"

​

--[1] - We settled this back where this 'inconsistency' started, in the paleosols thread (which I will continue when I get my comp problems and make progress on my current projects) and mainly in this post:

​

http://EvC Forum: Paleosols -->EvC Forum: Paleosols

---

You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false.You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility.

quote:

---

--I would still very much like to see what you have to say about this 'certain age' phenomenon.

---

I was talking in YOUR frame of reference. In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age. As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either. I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.

quote:

---

--[2] - This was also settled, in situ means in place of origin or deposition, you just have to read it in context. As I used it in my context, it could have been both.

---

Yes, and this was wrong. Unless you intentionally wish to confuse the readers.

quote:

---

In the context of Yuretich, I never argued that he probably meant it as a place of deposition.

---

Correct. You used it in the context that he might not have offered enough of data to support his point and it was open to interpretation. He adamantly refused this possibility.

quote:

---

That would have been a misunderstanding, but the misunderstanding never occurred.

---

Then you were not clear. [quote]"I have said only that you have manuevered Buddika into a discussion where he is not as acquainted as you with the literature. I can readily tell that he is a layman. I can also tell that you are a layman, but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about."--What do you mean 'but that you put on airs of knowing what you are talking about'? [quote] Well, let's see. Yuretich, a professor of sedimentology is wrong in his interpretation of the Specimen Ridge trees. Joe Meert, another professor who has devoted his entire career to geolgoy is also wrong, or worse yet, misunderstand a number of geological concepts. Now you ridicule Buddika because he does not follow some of your convoluted logic using fairly advanced jargon. Yes, I would say that you THINK you know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

All I am doing in that thread is showing myself and the board for my own satisfaction (though I am fully open for a deeper delve into a geologic discussion, it just hasn't happened yet and apparently should not be expected) that his arguments against flood geomechanics are foolish and that him saying that 'he knows' the flood couldn't happen is just an argument from his personal incredulity[thus void of credibility].

---

Nevertheless, Buddika is correct in his conclusions regarding the flood myth. Why have you not taken some of the lessons that you have been given here and asked more questions or expanded on the ideas? To the contrary, you have rationalized/defined them away and ignored explanations of radiometric dates etc., and then stubbornly defended your errors. I seriously doubt your desire to have a meaningful discussion and would rather simply bash another layman.

quote:

---

"Right. I will remember that the next time that someone accuses mainstream scientists of bias."

​

--What do you mean? Mainstream scientists do have a bias, and that bias is the 'mainstream bias'. I don't know what would be wrong with saying that, I have a Young Earth bias, you have an old earth bias. My recent readings out of The origin and evolution of the Solar system - Woolfson, 2000, supports that there is a tendency for scientists to attempt to avoid adaptation to new theories which are effective at altering comprehensive theories in science. Not only is it indicative in the text, it was directly admitted.

---

My point was that I doubt your analysis was free of input by creationist material. It is not possible to come the conclusions you have without some kind of mythological basis.[This message has been edited by edge, 12-09-2002]

"You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false."
--Not really and certainly not verbatim, I said, "...We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank['], or some such." When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something."You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility."
--Wrong."I was talking in YOUR frame of reference.¹ In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age.² As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either.³ I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.⁴"
--[1] - Were you? You stated that "At this point, it became quite clear that you are confusing 'absolute age' with 'certain age', which is complete misunderstanding of geochronology." This seems to indicate that since I don't know about some phenomena of 'certain age' as opposed to relative or absolute age that I then have a 'misunderstanding of geochronology'.
--[2] - I want a 'certain age'? Again explain what you mean by 'certain age'? Evidently you want me to give you a dating method which gives you a date which you could assume is more accurate than radiometric.. I hope this isn't what your saying.
--[3] - Nope, I know all about 'Error Brackets' or 'Error Bars'. This was also cleared up in that very same post:

quote:

---

You keep compounding your error! Please, it is getting painful to watch! Those are not approximations, they are limits of analytical error."
--I do not have, nor claim to understand all of the geological literature, its just that nothing you have illustrated says that I don't understand this area of it. I have even often made reference to these error bars. I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample.

---

--[4] - I don't think I remember making an assertion such as this in this, but maybe it was in the initial related thread? If I made the assertion, I'm pretty sure that there was good reason."Yes, and this was wrong. Unless you intentionally wish to confuse the readers."
--Nothing I have said regarding this was wrong in the thread.."Correct. You used it in the context that he might not have offered enough of data to support his point and it was open to interpretation. He adamantly refused this possibility."
--No this is incorrect, I never said that 'he' might not have offered enough data, I said that the link source didn't.. I believe I have made this clearly known quite a few times.
--You say, "Then you were not clear." But this is wrong:

quote:

---

[Post #25]
--I haven't bent any facts presented in the specimen ridge link. I have, however, pointed out its extreme lack in relevant detail.

​

[Post #30]
--Hey very well may have! I don't doubt this, what I am arguing is that the 'link' source is entirely poor in its information and data content, I can't say this regarding the text Yuretich wrote as I have not seen it. The only thing which seems to be illustrated in the link source is the conclusions Yuretich exclaimed.

​

[Post #45]
"Because you are the one who said his description should have been more complete to support his statement that the trees were untransported."
--No, not Yuretich's description. The link sources summarization of Yuretich's descriptions:

​

http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/forests.htm

​

[Post #45]
--Yes, the evidence which we know of does support the interpretation of transport. Though there is further falsifiability included in the rest of the data which should be in Yuretich's source, and is not illustrated in the link.

---

--I have made this more than sufficiently clear."Well, let's see. Yuretich, a professor of sedimentology is wrong in his interpretation of the Specimen Ridge trees.¹ Joe Meert, another professor who has devoted his entire career to geolgoy is also wrong, or worse yet, misunderstand a number of geological concepts.² Now you ridicule Buddika because he does not follow some of your convoluted logic using fairly advanced jargon. Yes, I would say that you THINK you know what you are talking about.³"
--[1] - Never said this, I just said I'm not going to accept the sloppy representation of his work and simply credulously accept it as that. Credible scientific initiatives just don't work that way. This is also something I have pointed out in repetition in the paleosols thread.
--[2] - I would be a fool to say that Joe Meert is 'Wrong' in areas, though I have made it clear that I question that his conclusions regarding various geodynamic operations will be my conclusion as well. I respect Meert in his knowledge and enjoy talking with him on various subjects he specializes in (where has he been by the way?), Its just that if I don't have the same level of understanding he has in some topic then why should I accept a conclusion drawn from that data which I do not fully understand? You know I am young and vernal in scientific experience, I have more than enough years ahead of me to look towards to make those conclusions, different or not.
--[3] - I would be more than happy to be more considerate with him regarding this, though he has not asked for it and has not made it evident by his sarcastic attitude. He has made it evident that he wants to be compared rather than differentiated with his creationist opponents, no matter their intelligence simply because they are creationists. If he really wants me to explain things to him, he should avoid continuously and repetitively attempting to point out my utter supidity, imbecility, sophist, and 'wannabe' attitude and argumental approaches."Nevertheless, Buddika is correct in his conclusions regarding the flood myth."
--Only in the same way Hovind takes up YECism and that I agree with it. The guy is a foolish charlatan, similarly Buddika and your comment here would be an analog."Why have you not taken some of the lessons that you have been given here and asked more questions or expanded on the ideas? To the contrary, you have rationalized/defined them away and ignored explanations of radiometric dates etc., and then stubbornly defended your errors. I seriously doubt your desire to have a meaningful discussion and would rather simply bash another layman."
--The only reason I am currently 'bashing another layman' is because I am getting my comp fixed right now and to post to the more sophisticated topics out right now would be tedious to handle in my lack of resources and software. You may not be aware, though I invest extensive amounts of time and form and carry out tedious though productive inquiries regarding that which is posted in this forum. I do this because I enjoy delving into topics. The topic of paleosols may be a good example off the top of my head. If all goes well, limestone origin and formation will be also. I don't defend my terminology and my assertions with a 'stubbornness'."My point was that I doubt your analysis was free of input by creationist material. It is not possible to come the conclusions you have without some kind of mythological basis. "
--Well if you want to turn it into that, sure it is partially derived from a 'creationists material'. Since I've read the book of Genesis before. What I mean is that my initial remark that 'my suggestion as it being a preflood soil isn't very hindered.' was not derived from readings of creationists material (eg. ICR, AiG, CRS, etc.), I also don't remember Genesis describing flood sedimentary boundaries.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"You specifically stated that geochronologists do not refer to 'apparent ages'. This is false."

​

--Not really and certainly not verbatim, I said, "...We certainly don't say 'this zircon apparently has an age of blank['], or some such."

---

You are dancing, TC.

quote:

---

When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.

---

A-one and-a-two!

quote:

---

"You also said that because Yuretich used the term 'in place,' that he really meant that prior transport was a possibility."

​

--Wrong.

---

Okay, you implied that since he didn't specifically mention the lower parts of the trunks not being abraded then they permitted the interpretation of being prior-transported, even though Yuretich expressly said that they showed no such evidence and are 'in-place.' This means that you basically want to apply your own facts in the absence of a description.

quote:

---

"I was talking in YOUR frame of reference.¹ In other words, what you want is a certain age rather than an apparent age.² As I remember now, you also did not understand the meaning of the error estimates on radiometric ages, either.³ I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric.⁴"

​

--[1] - Were you?

---

Gee, let me think now. What did I say? That I was speaking from your point of view? Yep, I guess that's it.

quote:

---

You stated that "At this point, it became quite clear that you are confusing 'absolute age' with 'certain age', which is complete misunderstanding of geochronology." This seems to indicate that since I don't know about some phenomena of 'certain age' as opposed to relative or absolute age that I then have a 'misunderstanding of geochronology'.

---

Nonsense, I am saying what I meant to say. You want a certain age because you cannot handle uncertainty. You want a supreme authority to tell you the age of the rocks.

quote:

---

--[2] - I want a 'certain age'? Again explain what you mean by 'certain age'? Evidently you want me to give you a dating method which gives you a date which you could assume is more accurate than radiometric.. I hope this isn't what your saying.

---

No. This is what you will accept because you do not understand the premises under which radiometric ages are derived. You would rather have it written in the bible.

quote:

---

--[3] - Nope, I know all about 'Error Brackets' or 'Error Bars'. This was also cleared up in that very same post:

​

quote:

---

You keep compounding your error! Please, it is getting painful to watch! Those are not approximations, they are limits of analytical error."
--I do not have, nor claim to understand all of the geological literature, its just that nothing you have illustrated says that I don't understand this area of it. I have even often made reference to these error bars. I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample.

---

​

Just as I have been saying. You do not have a command of the geological literature. The error brackets have little to do with the accuracy of the apparent age. They refer to the analytical error only.

​

--[4] - I don't think I remember making an assertion such as this in this, but maybe it was in the initial related thread? If I made the assertion, I'm pretty sure that there was good reason.

---

Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general.

"You are dancing, TC."
--I'm dancing? All I'm doing is responding to your assertions against mine. What I have found is that whether I could have been even slightly more clear on what I said or not, your attempts to refute what I've said are misleading and/or misrepresenting what I've said."TC:When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.A-one and-a-two!"
--But it is true isn't it."Okay, you implied that since he didn't specifically mention the lower parts of the trunks not being abraded then they permitted the interpretation of being prior-transported, even though Yuretich expressly said that they showed no such evidence and are 'in-place.' This means that you basically want to apply your own facts in the absence of a description."
--No this still isn't right. I didn't say that since he didn't, I said because the source which we both know of doesn't. I have not commented on Yuretich's work in this way. You did read the last half of my whole last post didn't you?
--I don't want to apply my own facts because of the absence (glad you attest that it is in fact absent), though I will suggest what may be there and what it would mean. Even still, the possibilities regarding abrasion will not contradict the conclusion of Yuretich, and may not have much impact as to mine either. The data should be looked at nonetheless.
--Also, I gave Yuretich an E-mail quite a while ago and haven't received a response as of yet. How did you get a response within the day? I would still like to see the context of his e-mail for my own satisfaction."Nonsense, I am saying what I meant to say. You want a certain age because you cannot handle uncertainty. You want a supreme authority to tell you the age of the rocks."
--I see what you mean then now. Even though this isn't true. I am not asking for something more accurate than radioisotopic dating."No. This is what you will accept because you do not understand the premises under which radiometric ages are derived. You would rather have it written in the bible. "
--Your arguments are not showing that I do not understand this. And you know that latter part isn't true."Just as I have been saying. You do not have a command of the geological literature. The error brackets have little to do with the accuracy of the apparent age. They refer to the analytical error only."
--What do you think I mean't by saying, "I said 'approximation' because that is what it is, an attempt to 'come close to' the actual age of the sample." Nothing you've said is contradicting anything I've said."Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general."
--So your telling me that when you said, "I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric." What did you mean? It seems that your trying to tell me that since he doesn't understand the terminology that my pointing out this fact was immature and hypocritical?-------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"TC:When I said this I wasn't saying that all ages were technically not apparent, just that when they refer to them, they don't say that the age is 'apparently' something.

---

Well, when someone talks about an apparent age, I assume that they mean the age is 'apparently something.' We were discussing the term 'apparent,' and you seemed to indicate that all ages were accepted as certain. If this is not the case you need to make yourself clearer.

quote:

---

--Also, I gave Yuretich an E-mail quite a while ago and haven't received a response as of yet. How did you get a response within the day? I would still like to see the context of his e-mail for my own satisfaction.

---

I don't think he is very fond of creationists.

quote:

---

"Maybe not this in particular but geological terminology in general."

​

--So your telling me that when you said, "I really think that your criticism of Buddika on this is hypocritical and sophomoric." What did you mean?

---

I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical.

quote:

---

It seems that your trying to tell me that since he doesn't understand the terminology that my pointing out this fact was immature and hypocritical?

---

Is English a second language for you? Do you understand what 'hypocritical' means?

TC gaffes...

quote:

---

B: "The corals are alive today. Everything died in the flood. Where did the corals that are alive today come from?"

​

TC: --Ah, yes, I see. I had the impression that you were trying to argue that it takes too long to create a coral reef. I would have to say after thinking about this more and referring to some texts, that the corals did not die. Your links on coral bleaching are irrelevant, though the thoughts on heat being a factor in inhibiting growth or killing the coral may be applicable. Of course, however, corals grow in an enormous variety of environments. Some grow at the bottom of the ocean.

---

Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins.

quote:

---

Others must grow near the surface, and others grow in the arctic and antarctic regions.

---

Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef.

quote:

---

areas which would have been ideal for corals survival would have been on top of continents and in the arctic and antarctic regions.

---

Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals? And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.

quote:

---

B: "Where is your case for your pretence that that these ranges were created in the last 5,000 years, since this again flies in the face of scientific knowledge? Or are you operating under the common creationist delusion that simply asserting something often enough makes it so? Please don't bother to actually try answering this. A simple arrogant assertion coupled with an insult will be more than sufficient by your standards."

​

--Again, you have no date, only relative dating methods. Nothing is going to give you an "age", ...

---

Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again.

"I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical."
--Sophomoric? How was it sophomoric? He is accusing me of believing something he things is easily falsified, has been falsified, and is completely ridiculous. whether a claim as this is veracious to any degree, he has not deduced this, he simply is parroting the words of others. He then continues his accusations against me that I am ignorant, stupid, narrow-minded etc. because I 'don't understand' that this is true. He has put himself in the position to be compared, not differentiated. And hypocritical? Could you support this one? I think I understand the geologic terminology which is being spoken in that thread well."Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins."
--Ahermatypic corals are found in deep cold waters."Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef. "
--Couldn't give you a reef type which grow in arctic regions, didn't say I could though either. Scleractinin corals live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters though."Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals?¹ And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.²"
--[1] - Translocation of corals toward the more temperate/arctic/antarctic regions would amount to less overall temperature extremes. Vardiman suggests that Polar bottom waters would be much warmer than currently (of course) 16-17.5^oC.
--[2] - I didn't necessarily say they would survive on mountain ranges. They would survive relatively on the continents as general global eustatic levels exponentially rose, much of which may have become deposited and buried. As waters abated, coral would get washed out as well."Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again."
--You forgot the part where I said it was appearance of age. The point I was making is that if the flood happened, there is expected to be no method for dating events, only principles of superposition and other such relative dating methods.--[Edit] - I find it odd to see that whenever an ill-informed YEC comes in and starts to parrot his/her blather around and I counter him with criticism, its always 'Go TC', 'Congrads for a great post TC', or 'Your learning TC!'. Though when I begin to criticize the ill-informed evo, I am shunned, scrutinized with every inconsistency [correct or not], and immediately abhorred as if I were a scientific rebel.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-14-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I mean what I said. Your criticism of Buddika for lack of familiarity with geological terms is sophomoric and hypocritical."
--Sophomoric? How was it sophomoric?

---

Because you are pretending to understand the subject.

quote:

---

"Please amplify. What oceans, and how deep? I know of no corals living in the deep sea basins."

​

--Ahermatypic corals are found in deep cold waters.

---

I repeat, what oceans and how deep?

quote:

---

"Perhaps you can give us an example of a living Arctic coral reef. "

​

--Couldn't give you a reef type which grow in arctic regions, didn't say I could though either. Scleractinin corals live in temperate, Arctic and Antarctic waters though.

---

What the heck is 'temperate arctic water?' And where do accumulations of such corals build up limestone deposits?

quote:

---

"Arctic an Antarctic would provide ideal environments for corals?¹ And what do you mean by 'on top of continents?' Remember your surges? How do you expect corals to survive on top of mountains in between surges? This is utterly silly even according to your own model.²"

​

--[1] - Translocation of corals toward the more temperate/arctic/antarctic regions would amount to less overall temperature extremes. Vardiman suggests that Polar bottom waters would be much warmer than currently (of course) 16-17.5^oC.

---

And then they would form limestones? Remember that is what we have in the geological record. Not isolated organisms.

quote:

---

"Really? What about radiometic ages? You seem confused once again."

​

--You forgot the part where I said it was appearance of age. The point I was making is that if the flood happened, there is expected to be no method for dating events, only principles of superposition and other such relative dating methods.

---

No, I didn't forget. Why would there be not methods for absolute dating? Are you simply ignoring radiometric ages?

quote:

---

--[Edit] - I find it odd to see that whenever an ill-informed YEC comes in and starts to parrot his/her blather around and I counter him with criticism, its always 'Go TC', 'Congrads for a great post TC', or 'Your learning TC!'. Though when I begin to criticize the ill-informed evo, I am shunned, scrutinized with every inconsistency [correct or not], and immediately abhorred as if I were a scientific rebel.

---

This is because, in this case, you have drawn Buddika into an area where he is not so informed. This was basically an ego trip for you. Why do you not challenge wehappyfew to such a debate on evidence for the flood? You have set yourself up as an expert in this debate and you are far from that.Besides, when you criticize the YECs you are right! Here you are marginally correct on some specific points, such as turbidites, but your overal undrestanding of the question is incomplete.

quote:

---

Originally posted by edge:
Ahermatypic corals are found in deep cold waters.

---

Interesting that ahermatypic corals do not build reefs. This doesn't explain the survival of corals that do build reefs. Forbidden
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 12-14-2002][This message has been edited by John, 12-14-2002][This message has been edited by John, 12-14-2002]