RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 632
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2006,02:39   

No comment on my fisking of your radiometric dating quote, hum, Dabvie-pooper?

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 07 2006,05:50)

WORLD BOOK AUTHORS ARE INCOMPETENT (cough cough, especially if they make us look bad) So, I guess the History professor at Oxford that I quoted is incompetent.  And probably all those other specialists in their fields that write all those other articles are too.

Wrong.  The World Book is a simplified source for young children who are not prepared for the real complexities.  It also has some errors.  It's not a pprorpaite as a refernce for a discussion like this.
EVO-BOTS USED CIRCULAR REASONING ON DATING FOSSILS ONLY UNTIL 1993. During this landmark year, they suddenly saw the light and realized how foolish they had been looking all those years prior to 1993.  They quickly sent out an Official Evobot Memo to all encyclopedia companies (including World Book) and fixed this embarrassing problem.

Circular reasoning was never used on dating fossils.

Check the latest version of World Book at the library today and see what I find.  Let me guess ... I'll find the same thing.  What will your explanation be?  That World Book is a Creo publication?  You've already implied the authors are incompetent because it was designed for kids.

No, the authors are competent, although that particular quote appears to be a mistake.

That article is wrong, Davie-poo, just as you are wrong, as has been pointed out many times already in this thread, with lots of details.  Repeating your debunked falsehoods doesn't make 'em true.  Stratigraphy and radiometric dating are independent ways of dating strata; the fact that they essentially always agree is not circularity.
You say it is wrong and yet you cannot explain how the dates at the upper layers in the GC are determined.  Sorry, Jonny ... World Book is right.

Whether or not I have any idea on how some particular set of layers is dated has nothing to do with the issue.
The Mount St Helens eruption in Washington State produced eight metres (25 feet) of finely layered sediment in a single afternoon!

Looking nothing like varves.
And a rapidly pumped sand slurry was observed to deposit about a metre (3&#8211;4 feet) of fine layers on a beach over an area the size of a football field (cross-section shown on the right: normal silica sand grains are separated by darker layers of denser mineral grains like rutile).

Looking nothing like varves.
When sedimentation was studied in the laboratory, it was discovered that fine bands form automatically as the moving water transports the different sized particles sideways into position.12 Surprisingly, the thickness of each band was found to depend on the relative particle sizes rather than on the flow conditions.13 A layered rock (diatomite) was separated into its particles, and when redeposited in flowing fluid, identical layers formed.

All looking nothing like varves.
Much is often made of the Green River varves,9 in Wyoming, USA. But these bands cannot possibly be annual deposits because well-preserved fish and birds are found all through the sediments.

It is unthinkable that these dead animals could have rested on the bottom of the lake for decades, being slowly covered by sediment.

Argument from incredulity.  Logical fallacy.
Their presence indicates catastrophic burial. It is often claimed that the fish and birds remained in prime condition at the bottom of the lake because the water was highly alkaline and this preserved their carcasses.15 Yet highly alkaline water causes organic material to disintegrate, and that is why alkaline powder is used in dishwashers!

Gee, laden with references throughout, except here ... the only reference for alkaline water decomposing organic material is Cascade Detergent!  Looks as if they just made that one up.

  6047 replies since May 01 2006,03:19 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (202) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]