Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50) | As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.
Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. |
forasmonaural:
Within the context of contemporary geology, "the Carboniferous" designates a geological era that had its onset ~359 million years ago, an interval that, for you, was 17,950x the age of the earth. Stated another way, it is your belief that the earth existed only during the last 1/17,950th (the last 0.00557%) of that period. (You live within an incredibly cramped history. I've never understood why anyone finds that appealing.)
The Carboniferous of actual geology continued for 60 million years - for you, 3,000x the entire span of earth's history. Events such as the "Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse" can only be understood with reference to Carboniferous itself, and have no meaning outside the network of facts and theory from which the standard geological chronology has been composed.
We have already established that it is your belief that no such era, nor any other era or epoch described by contemporary geology, ever transpired. Rather, you refer to ante- and post-diluvian "ecozones" - yet can't bring yourself to report your guess regarding just when the event relative to which these zones were "ante- " and "post-" occurred. We do know that it is your belief that that the age of the earth is less than 20,000 years. It follows that your use of the term "Carboniferous" has no relationship to that term as used within a scientific context, and instead has a private, idiosyncratic meaning that bears no relationship to "Carboniferous" as understood within Geology.
It follows, once again, that you are claiming in support your your bizarre geochronology events you believe never to have occurred. That seems to be a habit. Of course, such a claim is at once unintelligible, self-contradictory, and patently dishonest, as you are offering assertions that unquestionably you believe to be false ("such and such occurred during the Carboniferous") in support of your view.
Better stick with easier questions. Such as:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?
Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?
Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.
2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Unless you haven't the courage to muster a relevant response. Just let me know that is the case, and I'll stop embarrassing you with the question.
ETA: A juicier slice of Kong.
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
