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: 633
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,05:26   

Quote (afdave @ Aug. 26 2006,07:25)

Well, then I guess we have a disagreement between JonF and Deadman.  Also, Eric apprently thinks JonF didn't say that.  He thinks I am "reading challenged."

You are reading-challenged, Davie-pootles, but in this particular case a misunderstanding is understandable.

Deadman and I are using "dating" in slightly different meanings.  I tried to make my writing more clear by using "direct dating".  And some of what I wrote could easily be misunderstood if you ignore (or can't understand) context.

My statements apply to dating the layer using only measurements of the layer itself. Deadman's statements apply to dating the layer using measurements of the layer itself and/or other information.  All our statements are correct and do not conflict; nobody tries to date a layer measuring only the date of igneous grains in the layer and using no other information.  Nonetheless, dating of sedimentary layers is possible (despite your claim that it is not) and some of those dating methods involve measuring only things that formed when the layer lithified and are unquestionably the same age as the layer.
And last but not least ... AFD ...      
(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.)

and JonF responds with ...      
Go ahead, mention it, doofus.  It's just another example of yur ignorance and stupidity.  Tuffs are not sedimentary, moron.  Tuffs are igneous, idiot.
Where did I say that a tuff was sedimentary?  I don't think I have EVER said that anywhere ... certainly not in this quote.  Actually, I recall YOU saying something like "tuffs are sedimentary" when you tried to chastise me for referring to water-laid sedimentary rock simply as sedimentary rock.  You said something like "hey, doofus, lava is a sediment."  So, I guess if someone is a doofus for thinking tuffs are sedimentary, that would be you, not me.  But nice try.  Keep trying.  Maybe you will show me up yet.

Davie, moron, you brought up tuffs in the context of dating sedimentary rocks in the middle of a discussion of dating sedimentary rocks and no other kinds of rocks; you obviously thought they were sedimentary. And I did point out once that not all sediments are water-laid, and included some examples such as loess, but I never wrote anything that even an idiot like you could take as meaning that lava or tuffs are sedimentary.

Sorry, Davie-doodles, whimper all you want but you didn't even know what class of rock tuffs are!
So you see, many trees got deposited right side up with the roots down ...

We're not talking "many" here, davie-dork, we're talking "all".  ALL, Davie-poo.  And we're talking about all kinds of plants, most of which do not have the structural integrity or density of trees.
Not so silly after all is it now, Jon?

Getting sillier by the minute.
Not very difficult to imagine many of these plants getting "planted" in an upright position.

I'm having a really difficult time with that.  Try dropping your plant into any moving water and let us know whether it floats upright or sideways.  Sideways is my bet.  I can't see anything but maybe a few plants getting deposited upright .... but we're talking about all the plants getting deposited upright.  Millions of 'em.  Trees, bushes, tumbleweeds, dandelions, lilies, marigolds, all kinds of plants.
I'm sure they were deposited in many orientations.

Then why are they always found upright, with roots in growing position, in paleosols, Davie-diddles?  You are supposed to be explaining this observed fact.  If "they were deposited in many orientations" then you are admitting the your fludde cannot explain the observed facts.

  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]