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 >  
JonF



Posts: 633
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2006,14:11   

Dave, you promised an explanation for root traces in paleosols today.  In fact, you wrote:
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,22:20)
Oh and Jonnny ... I'll explain the root thing to you tomorrow.  It's pretty simple.

Pretty simple, hum, Davie-diddles?  Why haven't you posted your explanation yet?  I'm really looking forward to it.  Do you agree with Taz that the root traces may be due to plants transported by the fludde and carefully stuck into the sediments rightside-up with the roots carefully fanned out into growing position?

And remember your offer:
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 24 2006,08:48)
feel free to point out which layers are supposedly paleosols and I will be happy to analyze them

This is the third time I've asked you to analysze these paleosols; where's your analysis?
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 25 2006,09:37)
EXCELLENT!!!  I SEE THAT I'VE KILLED THIS ERRONEOUS NOTION ONCE AND FOR ALL.  THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

Here below, we have JonF admitting that you cannot date water-laid sedimentary rocks by dating the igneous grains.  Whew!  That was tiring!

Davey-moron, we killed your erroneous notion.  We only had to tell you a few dozen times before you figured it out.  It was indeed tiring trying to shove that notion into your thick  moronic skull.  

However, you neglected to acknowledge and apologize for your major error, repeated so many times:
 
Quote
S C I E N T I S T S         A T T E M P T         T O        D A T E      W A T E R        L A I D           S E D I M E N T A R Y        L A Y E R S       B Y      D A T I N G      G R A I N S     O F     I G N E O U S     O R I G I N


Scientists do not attempt to date water laid sedimentary layers by dating grains of igneous origins and you, Afdavie-poo, were wrong each and every time you claimed they did, and each and every time you ignored us telling you they don't.

And, of course, another error you didn't acknowledge:
   
Quote
They show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Jon

They {my links} don't show how to date grains of IGNEOUS origin, Davie-piddles.  You were wrong again.
   
Quote

But now he's on a new track ...  (Deadman?  Are you with him on this new track?)

DATING THE "CEMENT" THAT BINDS THE GRAINS TOGETHER

Or, as I wrote, dating other materials that formed when the rock lithified, such as xenotime that grew on the outside of igneous-origin zircons when the sedimentary rock lithified.  Or materials that were isotopically homogenized when the just before the rock formed, such as the illite deadman has already discussed.
   
Quote
(May this humble "macaque brain" be so bold as to point out that the "dating" of the KBS Tuff apparently violated this latest statement by JonF?  Didn't they date the grains of igneous material and keep the dates they liked, thus coming up with 1.87my ultimately?  N  n n n n n no!  Don't mention that.)

Go ahead, mention it, doofus.  It's just another example of yur ignorance and stupidity.

Tuffs are not sedimentary, moron.  Tuffs are igneous, idiot.

And, no, they didn't keep the dates they liked. They figured out what was going on and kept the dates that were replicable by several methods at several labs, whether they liked the dates or not.

My statements were explicitly relevant only to sedimentary rocks, so obviously they don't apply to dating tuffs.  Dolt.

  
  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]