RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:22   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 02 2009,09:57)
This new friend is a GoP style "creationist"*, not an AFDave style creationist.

Claims like "it's going to get more interesting", whines about slander (and it's libel, not slander. Slander is spoken, libel is written. It's also libel/slander ONLY if it's untrue), and making claims "just to get attention" (notice they are just to get attention after they've been exposed as simplistic crap) are dead giveaways.


When the best this new friend has is "responding to tone", with maybe a touch of "contradiction", then he/she can be written off as being not worth the effort of serious response.**

Louis

* I.e. He/she is here to troll.

** Mind you I currently feel this way about the vast majority of internet "arguments", so bear that bias in mind. The bulk of internet argument, in my experience, has been reduced to wiki-link trading gainsaying ego-fests as protagonists desperately struggle not to be wrong. I see no great utility/pleasure in engaging in such time wasting with obviously deluded/dishonest individuals. Infantile dick jokes and pointless banter are, amazingly, an intellectual step up.

I'm deluded?  And what do you do Louis besides believe heme can last 68 million years?  Think there was some rocks by that T-Rex bone? Because the C-14 was supposed to be gone with a half life of 5730 years. So they had to use rocks.  Bet they could have found some C-14 if they tried, since there was organic material still inside.

Yes Mr. Louis the C-14 question that you will undoubtedly gloss over as you relentlessly search for dishonesty, delusion, contradiction, and lack of knowledge.   Or maybe they didn't even date the leg since the geologic timescale could never be wrong.

Ms. Schweitzer--Get in line!

Louis, that article is the real "dead giveaway."  

Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:37   

If you wanted to discuss Darwin, Austin and the Santa Cruz...you had the ability to do so in a thread involving that, Scienthuse.

The problem is that even if I keep reminding you of the existence of that thread and the questions waiting there for you, you keep ignoring it.

Keep this thread for your claims on radiometrics and the other  for the Santa Cruz/Austin claims.

No need to try to keep introducing other irrelevant creationist claims about T-Rex heme at this point -- when you haven't actually responded to comments on radiometrics and Austin yet. Surely, you wouldn't want people to think you're merely running a  Gish Gallop, would you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,20:42   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,20:22)
Oh and by the way, you've ignored the facts 1) about the Santa Cruz valley--which WAS a water catastrophe--Darwin was wrong--who, whether or not he was a geologist--read Lyell--and needed Lyell's time to make his presumptive theory work.  2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

If you really knew me--and you don't have a clue--you would know that I learn from debating.  The things I know you have NOT refuted, but only in YOUR mind.

If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30

2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,21:33   

I did the Schweitzer v creatocrap articles years ago.

Dino Blood and the Young Earth, and

Dino Blood Redux

I suppose a new article is due.

Shit, creationists are stupid.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2009,21:42   

Quote (JonF @ Oct. 02 2009,15:43)
Hey, Dead, wasn't there a discussion of Austin and Santa Cruz somewhere?  I thought yo might be interested in http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=977.

Yes you are right.  

1)The valley is  6 miles wide by 200 miles long.  Austin states that the "valley is much smaller than the present river system requires." It is 1/10 as wide.

2) It is full of "depositional features" --"large boulder ridges and bars" throughout.

3)The present river is moving sand and pebbles.  Yet there are cobbles and boulders sometimes to the top of the valley.

4) Austin states that some of the rocks are from the "core of the Andes Mountains 150 miles away. This would be a significant discovery if this could be confirmed by peer review.

4) Again Darwin recorded a 15 foot boulder somewhere in the valley.

Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,00:10   

My thoughts are that I find it funny that you seem to have a real aversion towards dealing with any of my posts at all, Scienthuse. Even when (and perhaps especially because) I was relatively civil and courteous.

I politely asked you a goodly number of times to address the points I'd made and you then deliberately avoid doing so. I find that revealing and amusing. If I were a cynical man (and I am towards yecreationists), why, I might think that you're looking for a martyr's exit, so you can pretend to have "won" something.  

Gallop on, though, right past this for the fifth or sixth time:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,20:42)

1. So what if Darwin was wrong about the origins of a "boulder bank" on the Santa Cruz...are you arguing that you think the entire valley was created by a single catastrophic flood? If not, then you're wrong about Darwin being entirely wrong. Go back to the Austin thread and address my questions there -- as I have patiently asked you many (four or five) times. http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....4;st=30



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,00:29   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
Austin claims a "glacial outburst flood" in the "upper drainage of the Santa Cruz River" as a source of the flood in the SC valley, which was responsible for depositing the cobbles and boulders.

Austin claims that the water was moving at freeway speed at 400 feet deep in order to drag the boulders up the slope.  I do not know where he got these exact figures  He worked with Dr. Henry Morris before the latter's decease--Dr. Morris was a PhD in hydraulic  engineering.

"Hydraulic engineering is a sub-discipline of civil engineering concerned with the flow and conveyance of fluids, principally water." Wikipedia

The fact that the cobbles extend to the top of the valley suggests that moving water once filled or overflowed the valley--and probably re-formed the valley.  The boulders suggest that the water was moving at a significant rate.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).  Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,05:39   

Scienthuse,

1) It's Dr Louis, thanks.

2) I'm well beyond being reeled in by trolls/fools. I'll let others waste their time with you. Your schtick is old, I've seen it before.

Whether or not other people think you are a troll is up to them. AtBC is not homogeneous, there are a variety of disagreements about a number of things. As far as I'm concerned you have all the hallmarks so far of a specific type of creationist/troll. Either that or despite your claim to not being "green" you've learned nothing in discussions with others.  Neither option inspires me to waste my time with you.

Now I'll admit, I could be very wrong about that. You could be some spectacularly lovely creationist, sincere in all his/her beliefs and genuinely interested in discussion. But leaping into any conversation/discussion/site and whining about tone, playing asinine games with "attention getters", making claims about "it'll get better later" like you've got some ace up your sleeve are dead giveaways. You are pulling the same creationist nonsense of old: attempt to knock down current science as if that will some how lend support to your creationist crapola, all the while flailing your hands and chucking as much irrelevant smoke around as possible to disguise the fact that you've got nothing.

Even if you do manage to knock some aspect of current science down, and let's be blunt you haven't a chance especially using standard creationist talking points that have been long refuted, what positive evidence have you presented in favour of your own claims? That's right, none.

Like I said, trying to play "gotcha", infantile attempts to gainsay others, rehashing the same drivel time after time, playing the martyr (undoubtedly next in your play book, you've already shown the beginnings), claims of "warring equal worldviews", and other such classic hallmarks of the creationist clown or troll, really fail to inspire dialogue.

If you, unlike most creationists in my experience, can get past your offence at the fact that reality doesn't agree with the bullshit chanted by the bunnies in your head you might be worth some effort.

3) Did I say anything about the geologic column, C-14 dating, T-Rex or anything else? No. Gish Gallop much? Do I want to waste my time in "discussion" with someone like you? No. I'll let you know if I change my mind. Touchy little troll ain'tcha?

4) Stay around as long as you like, I have neither the power to change your presence here, nor any interest in changing it. I seem to remember it was you who came stampeding in, swinging comments about tone around. If someone invited you, more fool you for accepting, chew toys are fun for a while but they rarely grab the attention for long. I doubt you have the capacity to break the endless cycle of dumb that surrounds discussions on this issue.

5) Creationism is not even wrong. In all its various strains and species (unless of course it gets watered down to the vague creative deism it usually does when confronted) it is at best a parody of science. It's an attempt to gull the gullible into believing a specific set of religious claims has some veneer of scientific credibility. It has always failed to date and will always continue to. You can misrepresent that as some scientific/atheist dogma if you wish, you'd be wrong, and wrong in ways I'd guess you can't even begin to understand.

I know you don't understand that but try to let the possibility percolate into your cranium, it will make for more interesting discussion. By the way, before you bother, science is provisional. The idea that a specific set of scientific ideas is potentially wrong is enshrined in the process from the get go. You are not dealing with an opposed dogma. Perhaps that is something you might attempt to understand.

6) Show me something new. I have little need or interest in rehashing GCSE chemistry every day of my life as if it were cutting edge, the same applies to creationist claims. Show me something new and interesting. Stop wasting my time with long refuted nonsense and bog standard misunderstandings of science.

7) And no, I'm not very nice. Denialists, antiscience woo peddlers, wind up merchants and the wilfully ignorant  and actively stupid bring out the intolerant prick in me. {Shrug} We all have our crosses to bear.

That's about all the time I'm willing to waste being nice. LOL

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,07:37   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,00:29)

My thoughts are also that Austin could have -- in the many years since he's been pushing his "Santa Cruz catastrophe" claims -- published a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. But he hasn't. Yet he has a video to sway the sheep!!  But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims! But he'll cherry-pick stuff to "respond" to at various creationist sites! But he won't entertain actual, ongoing scientific debate of his claims in the peer-reviewed journals!

My thoughts are that Austin's (and your above) "take" on the Santa Cruz...is wrong. Your use of the singular "flood,"  and Austin's use of the same, implies you believe, or wish to deceptively imply, that it was a single flood that created the Santa Cruz valley features.

My thoughts are that this notion of a singular flood creating the Santa Cruz is ...how shall I say it... ah,  yes -- bullshit. Demonstrable bullshit.

My thoughts are also that Henry Morris was a crank and a failure at hydraulic engineering and just about every science he set his fanatic eyes on (yes, I have read his nonsense).

 Having  a PhD means damn little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to all physical data and reality.A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).

That's what I think, Scienthuse...what do you think about that?

I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
         
Quote
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....

Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       
Quote
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).


Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,07:45   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
 
I've decided I'll ignore DOCTOR Louis--I like your quote deadman. This applies to Louis in regards to the article I gave him and that's all I'll say to him from now on.
                     
Quote
Having  a PhD means...little when your "science" is that laughably bad and contrary to...physical data....

Deadman--

Ausin and DarwinI'm not understanding something here.  Darwin was wrong about the Santa Cruz valley but Morris and Austin are cranks.  Now I understand anyone can pose a hypothesis that can be later falsified--so I would never call Darwin a crank. Even ifI disagree with him scientifically, or philosophically, OR BECAUSE HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SCV.

I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

                   
Quote
A minor "for instance" of Henry Morris' hydrologic incompetence is his failure to recognize that vertical walls on the scale of the Grand Canyon's, cut in wet or damp strata, tend to (and will) slump and collapse -- even though Morris believed that the Grand Canyon was cut while still soft and unconsolidated (see "The Genesis Flood" pp. 151-153).


Vertical canyon wall "shaping"You are completely right deadman.  But you forget we're not talking about a brick wall here--were talking about the ground.  It would be physically impossible for the walls to lean toward the river--but not impossible for them to be vertical or lean away from the river--WERE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY SILICATE BASED SEDIMENT, NOT TOPSOIL MUD. 

I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

(1) I said Morris was a crank and Austin was wrong, Scienthuse. Try reading for accuracy.  Also, YOU haven't shown that Darwin was wrong at all. Nor has Austin, in ANY valid scientific way -- hint: propaganda videos are not acceptable substitutes for peer-reviewed papers, which Austin COULD have published, IF he had any valid evidence.

(2) Creationists don't peer-review their own papers, they check them for adherence to their Biblical presuppositions. Don't believe me? Try actually learning about the various topics written about in "creationist" papers and then we can discuss the myriad errors in each one. Oh, and if they DO peer-review them, why can't anyone find out about their peer-review processes and reviewers for the many, many papers that are shown to be wrong?  

(3) Uh, the Grand Canyon is not "composed of silicated clays." It has hundreds of meters of limestones, sandstones and conglomerates, none of which is termed clay. "Clay" has a meaning, scienthuse. You should be able to look it up in a dictionary of geological terms. You simply don't know what you're talking about.  You're also ignoring the gneiss and schist I mentioned in another post. Among MANY other things.

(4) Henry Morris claimed the Canyon was cut in one fell swoop in his "genesis flood" and HE said it was in SOFT, unconsolidated  materials...which not only would make  the hundreds of meters of verticals (wth billions of tons of overlying materials) impossible, IF it were laid in the manner and timespans  that Morris yaps stupidly about -- it also goes directly against basic physics of deposition -- like LIMESTONE (which precipitates agonizingly slowly) overlain by heavier materials like sandstones and conglomerates. In that brief span of Morris' "Genesis Flood", this is physically impossible.

You don't know what you are talking about in the least, scienthuse:

 
See anything there that says "clay strata?" No? How about you try to learn about the topics BEFORE arguing creationist talking points that are obviously false?

ETA: This is Redwall Limestone. Do you know how limestone is formed? How fast it's measured to precipitate on average? How it is dolomitized?




Look at it, then look at the THOUSANDS of meters of material that overlay it in the stratigraphic column above. How could soft, unconsolidated ooze (according to Henry Morris' bullshit scenario)  that is over 95% PURE CALCIUM CARBONATES stand up vertically underneath gravity and that amount of overlay pressure?  Morris was an idiot -- and since I DIDN'T say it before, I'll say NOW that Austin is a crank, too.

So, what do you think of all that, "Scienthuse?"

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,09:22   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 02 2009,21:22)
2)Also you ignored the facts about relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating.

I see you haven't figured out what "most commonly" means. Nor do you understand what is being calibrated by the known-age sample in Ar-Ar dating.

Just for grins, let's see what of mine you haven't addressed:

 
Quote
If you have any actual, you know, evidence that you know what you're talking about and you're not so "green and tender", especially any evidence that scientists assume that "all lead 206 in the entire world is a complete result of the U 238 decay chain" or any evidence that the RATE group's claims are worth further investigation, trot it out.


 
Quote
...essentially all of the lead in a zircon must be the result of radioactive decay after solidification:
 
Quote
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay.


 
Quote
Hasn't been mentioned here, but it sure has been mentioned. They did off-handedly acknowledge that accelerated decay rates had a few minor problems such as releasing enough heat to melt the Earth, releasing enough radiation to sterilize the Earth, and being incompatible with astronomical observations of stars obstinately shining.


 
Quote
Of course, in zircons essentially all the 206Pb is from decay after solidification, as the RATE group acknowledged in the quote I posted above. That's the way the world works, because lead is too big to fit in the crystal lattice and has a totally unsuitable valence. But you've never heard of common lead correction, of course.


 
Quote
     
Quote
 Or how much left or entered into the rocks through means such as ground water?

See my previous reply. Ar-Ar dating can (and does) often produce a valid date even if the system has not been closed.


 
Quote
But the fact that argon is seldom found in molten lava was confirmed by Dalrymple's study of 26 recent lava flows. See Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There Is No Excess Argon?. Bet it never occurred to you that creationists always cite "studies" of single samples whereas real scientists work with studies of as many samples as possible, which is the only valid way to assess the validity and limitations of a technique.


 
Quote
     
Quote
I already know you'll rebut with contamination claims, and that the lab can't date rocks under a certain age.  My question is why did they then??  Why would they send the data back to the group if they knew it could be contaminated, or that they couldn't do it.  Sounds a bit political to me.

Dating labs get paid to run stuff through the equipment. You send 'em stuff, they run it through the equipment, they send you the results, they get paid. They don't care whether or not the results mean anything. They're not in business to second-guess the customers. That's about as far from being "political" as you can get.

Austin deliberately chose samples that would give the results he wanted because they were a mixture of old and new material. That's not contamination, that's fraud.


 
Quote
 
Quote
Science says helium should have escaped with an atomic weight of 4.00260.  Perhaps you should give us a lesson on how over half the helium does not escape a rock after 1.5 billion of years of decay.

A question on your last line. How do you distinguish the difference between daughter isotopes that are products of decay and those that are not?


You got a lot to address before we get into 14C dating and we rip you a new one there too.  The Gish Gallop may go over big at the church socials, but nobody here is impressed.
Quote
If you think I'm a troll, I'll go elsewhere and leave you all to your little room.  But I WAS invited to stay.  Just let me know, because there are much more tolerable forums than this one!

Yup, they'd just love you at one of those creo forums that doesn't allow dissent.

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,09:28   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 02 2009,21:42)
2. "Relative dating between K-Ar and Ar-Ar" ??? Uh, those aren't relative dating methods, nor is it appropriate to use that term in that manner. They are both absolute dating methods.

It's not surprising that he can't get the terminology correct, all he's got he picked up from creo websites. He's talking about the fact that in Ar-Ar dating the irradiation equipment is calibrated using a sample of known age, and this sample's age is often (but not always) known because it's been dated with K-Ar. This has him all a-twitter and somewhere in the cavernous and empty recesses of what we might call (for lack of a better term) his mind he seems to think that this has some impact on the validity of Ar-Ar dating. What trail of "logic" he followed to get this conclusion I don't know; I presume it's the ol' AfDDave "some = all" fallacy applied multiple times.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,10:13   

I think Scienthuse belongs in the Tonto Group.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,10:19   

LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,12:00   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,07:37)
I think "attacking the messenger" is a cheap shell game ploy.

Peer ReviewLet's be real--is any evolutionary journal going to let a creationist in and sully their prestigious reputation?  That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas.  

As far as peer review--there is peer review among creationists, which contrary to your likely guess, is not so few.

       I hike through a canyon that in places are vertical and some are not.  Where there are waterfalls there are vertical walls OF CLAY-- high in silicate material.  There are huge boulders of sedimentary clay (some of them you can scratch sand off with your fingers) strewn over the bottom on top of each other, which are obviously a result of gravity pulling them off the side.  In effect gravity shaped the canyon--NOT THE WATER--flooding has cut the canyons--but gravity shaped it.  And the walls are vertical, this principle would still work even if the walls were 10 times higher.

It is silicate based clay that can cause vertical walls on canyons--yet be "soft" enough for flooding to cut through.  The grand canyon is a large scale of this principle--because it's walls are silicate based--not soft mud formed in the topsoil.

guys, I think we've got one dumber than FL or ray-ray.

"attacking the messenger is a cheap shell game ploy"  Attacking the messenger('s idiotic posts) is what this forum is about.  Go home if you don't want to play.

"That's like saying Richard Dawkins is going to Glen Rose, Texas"  I suspect that if you paid his fee, Dawkins would be on the next plane. He would probably love to thump those thumpers.

Peer Review:  Poor IDiots.  they want to be accepted as true scientists, but only if we change the rules.WHIIIINNNNNNNE.

" I hike through a canyon . . ."

This is so funny in so many ways its just sad. I know most of you understand geology 101, but obviously someone needs a lesson. CLAY is a mineral found in many sedimentary rocks.  It is not a rock.  Is your rock shale, siltstone, sandstone? Enquiring minds want to know! If only gravity was it work, wouldn't all the material that has fallen off the walls still be there somewhere?  What force carried it away? You say canyon walls cannot overhang:  ever been in a slot canyon in Arizona or Utah?  Ever seen pictures of a slot canyon? Again geology 101:  limestone is not silicate based.

If you are the IDiots next great white intellect, the movement is definitely doomed.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,13:20   

Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 03 2009,12:00)

Clay is not a mineral: it is a kind of sediment formed from fine grains of various different minerals, very water-absorbent, and showing a huge range of plasticity (malleableness) depending on the moisture content.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,15:19   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 03 2009,10:19)
LOL Whatever Scienthuse Clownshoes. Naught but piss and wind as usual.

Enjoy this one fellas, it's melting down early. I predict a flounce out will be soon forthcoming.

Louis

Should "Scienthuse" continue along the same vein and keep avoiding answering the points directed at him, MY nickname for him is going to be much more earthy: it begins with a familiar Anglo-Saxonism and ends with "house"

Then I'll do a parody of an old 70's Commodores disco tune ...
 
"Well, he's a ___ house
He's mighty flighty,
Just lettin' that methane out."

Note how totally groovy I'll be. Sputter in your envious frustration.


P.S. Scienthuse -- feel free to pretend my mild humor incredibly insulting and proceed to step three: Operation Flounce.

But keep in mind that I've been asking you NICELY, politely to respond directly to my two questions on Steve Austin - Santa Cruz River many, many times now, and you've instead opted to be snarky and disrespectful first.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,19:47   

Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,20:27   

The fact of the matter stands, Scienthuse, is that you made fallacious statements, and what little efforts you made to support these fallacious statements were to appeal to the authority of known liars, or accuse us of slander when we pointed out that you and your authorities were lying.

Claiming that the duties of real life preclude and or prevent you from answering our questions and rebuttals to your fallacious claims will not win any sympathy from us, especially since you obviously appear to have more than enough time to whine about our tone, as well as accuse us of slander when we dissect your claims for bullshit content.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,20:59   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

Project much, Scienthuse?

So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  

You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time


I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time)

I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here:

----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.

Your response, Scienthuse:
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.


Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

---------------------------------

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false, bullshit-laden  "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points  MANY times:  


Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism"

False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science"
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you on radiometric dating
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios

Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens

You are corrected on helium and container rocks

You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating

You get corrected on Henry Morris here:

You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon:
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my questions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have desk computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  Here to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrected on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim here to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

You've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out, punkin'. It's not as if everyone here hasn't seen this act many times before -- The only thing that makes you "unique" is the particular depth of YEC intellectual dishonesty that you descend to.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:22   

awwww, you killed it!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:23   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 03 2009,21:59)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 03 2009,19:47)
Deadman,

I have a life.  I do not sit in front of my comp all day as it seems perhaps you do.  You should go get some exercise. Maybe some field study instead of basking in your own surmisings, based on long dead men's model that is faithfully defended by their disciples.  

You have said many things, and so has everybody else.  Am I supposed sit and answer everyone's questions?  I said what I said.

I will get back to you on your comments about limestone and Morris' comments about the GC.  If your in such a hurry to see what creationists are putting forth you know you can go to AiG for journal answers.

So...because you "have a life" that's the ONLY reason you have failed to answer my questions. Yet, you've managed to make 21 posts during your stay here.

Here's the first time I asked you to answer my two simple questions, Scienthuse:
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,20:40)
 I have two questions for you.

(1) You (and Austin, repeatedly, in that video) use the term "flood," singular...giving the impression that he and you believe that it was a singular flood event that created those formations and features. Do you believe that to be the case?

(2) In the video Austin mentions "his view" of the valley and "his view" of the boulder bar deposition. This left me with the impression that Austin was presenting an hypothesis original to Austin. Do you believe that to be the case -- that the catastrophic flooding hypothesis for the Santa Cruz valley and relevant features is original to Austin ?  

You ignored them, so I asked again, the second time


I asked you to answer my original questions again (3rd time)

I ask you to answer my original questions for the fourth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the fifth time here:

I ask you to answer my questions for the sixth time here:

----------------

Let me remind you of a few things, Scienthuse

first, your claims to desire civil scientific-based discussions  
First, my willingness to be civil:
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 30 2009,04:31)


I'll continue this friendly-style discussion as long as you wish to remain civil and address MY points as well. You can start with my question above.

Your response, Scienthuse:
   
Quote (Scienthuse @ Sep. 30 2009,19:38)

I would like to be civil and I will also ignore uncalled-for sarcastic slams (not from you deadman).  We are all human beings who breathe the same air, even if we don't agree.


Apparently, your "interpretation" of civil discussions means ignoring a series of civil requests 6 times -- while you first avoid, THEN post well over a dozen times, then insult me by claiming I'd said things I had not.

---------------------------------

The real reason you chose to behave that way was because you'd been corrected on your false "Answers in Genesis" and "ICR" talking points ...well, MANY times:  


Your false claim on Darwin's "Son" and Darwin's "atheism"

False claim about Harlan Bretz being "ignored by science"
(A standard AIG/ICR talking point)

False claims on Mt. Saint Helens, corrected
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you on radiometric dating
(another AIG/ICR talking point)

Jon corrects you again, on parent/daughter ratios

Jon corrects you on radiometrics, RATE, and Mt. Saint Helens

You are corrected on helium and container rocks

You are corrected on your false claims regarding K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating

You get corrected on Henry Morris here:

You get corrected on vertical Grand  Canyon walls here, and I correct you on your claim that I called Austin a crank, then I correct you on "silicate clay" strata in the Grand Canyon:
--------------

This has nothing to do with you "having a life" and being unable to post -- you ignored my qustions MANY times, yet posted continuously during that time.

It has nothing to do with ME "being online all day" -- some people have computers, blackberrys and laptops that allow quick answers whenever I happen to pop in...it took me all of 8 minutes to respond to your last "TEH Grand Canyon is made of CLAY> ZOMG!!!" bullshit, scienthuse

Considering the insults you tossed at me first, your claim to desire civil discourse is bullshit

Considering your inability to answer even basic questions on relevant topics, your claim  Here to "know" about subjects here is bullshit.

Considering how many times you had to be corrercted on even ridiculously stupid shit like "TEH Grand Canyon iz CLAY, ZOMG and teh Mt. St. Helens 'canyon' is like it!!!!" ... your claim here to NOT be "green and tender" is bullshit.

Suck on that, Scienthuse...oh, and you've been around here an AWFUL lot during the past four days for someone who "doesn't have the time" to answer basic questions politely (at first) asked.

I have no reason at all to be polite to you at all again, and I can assure you I won't get tired of making you look even more stupid than you already do So ... do your flounce-out,

See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards

kiss up teachers pet suck up grrrrr damn deadman always pwns the hardest

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2009,21:29   

Quote
See people THAT is the sorta thing that gets you awards

And if not, you can award them to yourself! &%#@ da man! Anarchy now! Power to teh pipples!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,09:03   

Deadman,  Here's a summary--it you need references I can get it. So quit your griping--I'm trying to do you right.

1) Redwall Limestone and modern lime muds are different in their biologically produced material.  GC--calcite / modern lime muds--aragonite.

2)RL contains "clay sized" (smaller) calcite 4 microns.  Lime muds contain "silt sized" aragonite 20 microns.

3)Much evidence of transport and rapid water deposition in Redwall Limestone.

a)Chert--Chert resulted from diagenesis, which is chemical change after initial deposition and  lithification. Lithification is the process of water expulsion caused by pressure (which is evident in many limestone deposits).  I did not get this from AiG--this is from personal study--okay!  You guys think I'm stupid.

WHAT CAUSED the pressurized drainage which is evident in the chert????  If you counter with tectonic uplift from the ocean bottom, then you must explain the shale  that is both below and above the limestone.  It also forms under water.

b)McKee and Ghutschick (1969) admit lack of coral reefs,(hello WHERE ARE THEY?????) and stromalites "which might form slowly in tidal flat environments...."  Laminated algal masses show "concentric structure" (very significant evidence) and "and are best interpreted as algal masses which have been transported by rolling." Austin

4) Detailed but broken up fossils along with sand and other minerals shows rapid burial--evidence of transport
and rapid burial of bryozoan and an abundance of detailed crinoid fossils.

Mckee and Gutschick redwall

Fossils do not form by laying in shallow oxygenated waters.  Organisms will decay.

Some may suggest anoxic waters but this is not indicative of mud limes or coral reefs, neither forminafera or other phytoplankton.

Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

Uniformintarian interpretation is bogus in that it ignores obvious evidence and instead inserts and deletes certain evidences and or hypotheses where needed.  1)Because the mindset has been formed by indoctrination from grade school on--2) and because the careers and reputation of uniforms are paramount for continuance of such--there is much ignoring and "spinning" of the evidence.  All for the sake of the "grand geologic timescale model."

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,09:44   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,10:35   

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find yet another creobot is both willfully ignorant in the extreme and a liar for Jesus to boot.

Fucktard #eleventybillion

I think all we're waiting on is the homoerotic photos of professional "wrestlers" and an altar call.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:33   

So what personal studies lead you to assume that chert can be "rapidly" deposited from 40 days and 40 nights of magic rain?

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:47   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,09:44)
       
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,09:03)
Therefore the only logical empirical deduction in light of this evidence is rapid transport and deposition of the Redwall Limestone of the Grand Canyon.

When you say "rapid" how long are you talking about?

1 day?
1 year?

?

And did the Redwall Limestone form at a faster rate, the same rate or a slower rate then a comparable body of Limestone elsewhere? Or did *all* Limestone form at the same speed "rapidly"?

Define "rapid" please.

"Rapid" would be defined by the evidence as follows:

1)Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial--because they are detailed--not a partially decomposed mess.  The fact that they are broken up but in "living detail" suggests transport and not decomposition.

2)I might add that this the case with many partial fossils.  They are broken but not decomposed.

As for the comment made by Lou in the prior post. Why don't you spend your energy answering why there are no fossilized coral reefs in the limestone--since you must believe that organisms can remain un-decomposed indefinitely and be buried slowly--in accordance with standard uniformintarian doctrine??  

But instead you are going to  preach at me with your "liar for Jesus" stuff--you probably don't even believe he existed! When at the same time you are obviously full of bitterness and malice.  It's almost time for me to go--because I can feel the absolute cynicism and hardness in some of you.  It spreads like cancer!

 And if you think I'm a liar, I gave a link to the McKee and Gutschick research in the Redwall Formation.  It is uniformintarian in interpretation--but it will confirm that many detailed fossils exist in the RL.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,11:54   

Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial

There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Scienthuse



Posts: 43
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2009,12:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 04 2009,11:54)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 04 2009,11:47)
Rapid enough for broken up crinoid to be "fresh."  In other words they were not decomposed at the time of burial

There are circumstances where decomposition is not an accurate indication of time since death.

E.G. Peat Bogs.

And I saw no other indication of a time period in your comment.

Please put a figure, in time, on the formation of the Redwall Limestone. Hours, days, years. Whatever.

I don't have an exact time--I gave you a time span--the time span that it takes for crinoid to start showing signs of decay--in shallow oxygenated water most probably although I do believe some of them live in deeper waters.  But that they are in association with coral and algae in the limestone--this would suggest they came from similar habitat.

Why is it necessary for you to have an exact time?

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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