Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Given the obvious variability of the Earth's rotation, do you think that extrapolating the present spin decay back in time, is a reliable method of determining the earth's age?

Do you think that since it's difficult , that it's not possible?

It's not a matter of it being difficult, it's a matter of it being variable. Without knowing the variations in time and scope, it's impossible to project back accurately.

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would accept a uniformitarian assumption in one area, but reject it in another.

The need to selectively apply principle is one of evolution's most glaring errors.

Interesting cut and paste job there real life. let me post the entire paragraph..

Quote:

Located in the Afar triangle of the African Rift Valley, Gona has yielded the world's oldest archaeological sites, with very early stone tools dated to between 2.5 and 2.6 million years ago. The archaeological record in the Gona area contains sites spanning a large range of Stone Age prehistory, from different periods of the Oldowan, through early and later Acheulean times, and up to the Middle Stone Age. In addition, the Gona study area has produced a number of early hominid fossils from a range of time periods, including Ardipithecus from about 4.5 million years ago, early Homo at about 1.7 million years ago, and Homo erectus at about 1 million years ago.

Unless you want to claim that early hominids that are NOT homo sapiens are part of mankind your sites don't support the claim that mankind has been making tools for millions of years.

But you are very good at avoiding any actual discussion of the issue, parados.

parados wrote:

Interesting cut and paste job there real life. let me post the entire paragraph..

Quote:

Located in the Afar triangle of the African Rift Valley, Gona has yielded the world's oldest archaeological sites, with very early stone tools dated to between 2.5 and 2.6 million years ago. The archaeological record in the Gona area contains sites spanning a large range of Stone Age prehistory, from different periods of the Oldowan, through early and later Acheulean times, and up to the Middle Stone Age. In addition, the Gona study area has produced a number of early hominid fossils from a range of time periods, including Ardipithecus from about 4.5 million years ago, early Homo at about 1.7 million years ago, and Homo erectus at about 1 million years ago.

Unless you want to claim that early hominids that are NOT homo sapiens are part of mankind your sites don't support the claim that mankind has been making tools for millions of years.

You fell in right where I wanted you.

Are you going to deny that homo erectus (Latin for 'upright man'), homo habilis (Latin for 'skillful man') and others are often referred to as 'early man' ?

The original article that maporsche objected to (and then you jumped aboard) did NOT refer to 'homo sapiens' but instead to 'mankind'. You want to pretend that a grave error has been committed and that 'homo sapiens' are being referenced when they aren't.

You need to read more carefully and quit trying to mischaracterize.

parados wrote:

Interesting cut and paste job there real life. let me post the entire paragraph..

Quote:

Located in the Afar triangle of the African Rift Valley, Gona has yielded the world's oldest archaeological sites, with very early stone tools dated to between 2.5 and 2.6 million years ago. The archaeological record in the Gona area contains sites spanning a large range of Stone Age prehistory, from different periods of the Oldowan, through early and later Acheulean times, and up to the Middle Stone Age. In addition, the Gona study area has produced a number of early hominid fossils from a range of time periods, including Ardipithecus from about 4.5 million years ago, early Homo at about 1.7 million years ago, and Homo erectus at about 1 million years ago.

Unless you want to claim that early hominids that are NOT homo sapiens are part of mankind your sites don't support the claim that mankind has been making tools for millions of years.

You fell in right where I wanted you.

Are you going to deny that homo erectus (Latin for 'upright man'), homo habilis (Latin for 'skillful man') and others are often referred to as 'early man' ?

The original article that maporsche objected to (and then you jumped aboard) did NOT refer to 'homo sapiens' but instead to 'mankind'. You want to pretend that a grave error has been committed and that 'homo sapiens' are being referenced when they aren't.

You need to read more carefully and quit trying to mischaracterize.

33 - OIL PRESSURE?-Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicate that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressure within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7,000-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.

"Why do we see an explosive gusher when a drill strikes oil? Because oil, like natural gas, is maintained in the earth at enormously high pressure?-about 5,000 pounds per square inch at a depth of 10,000 feet. Supposedly oil and gas have been lying there for millions of years. But how could they have lasted that long without leaking or otherwise dissipating those extreme pressures."?-James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 136

34 - OIL SEEPAGE?-A 1972 article, by *Max Blumer, (*"Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, Vol. 176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionist geologists had thought. *Blumer says that oil seepage from the seafloor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.

In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from offshore wells. But if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.

35 - LACK OF ANCIENTLY DESTROYED RESERVOIRS?-All of the oil in the world must have been placed there only in the recent past. We can know this because if long ages of time had elapsed for earth's history, then we should find evidence of anciently destroyed oil reservoirs. There would be places where all the oil had leaked out and left only residues, which would show in drilling cores! But such locations are never found. Coal is found in various stages of decomposition, but oil reservoirs are never found to have seeped away.

38 - ZIRCON/LEAD RATIOS?-This and the next discovery were made by R.V. Gentry; both are discussed in detail in chapter 3, Origin of the Earth, and in his book, Nature's Tiny Mystery.

Zircon crystals were taken in core samples from five levels of a very hot, dry 15,000-foot [45,720 dm] hole in New Mexico, with temperatures always above 313° C [595.4° F]. That is more than 200° C [392° F] hotter than the sea-level temperature of boiling water.

Radiogenic lead gradually leaks out of zircon crystals, and does so more rapidly as the temperature increases. But careful examination revealed that essentially none of the radiogenic lead had diffused out of that super-heated zircon. This evidence points strongly to a young age for the earth.

42 - NIAGARA FALLS?-The French explorer, Hennepin, first mapped Niagara Falls in 1678. From that time until 1842, the falls eroded the cliff beneath them at a rate of about 7 feet [213 cm] per year. More recent calculations would indicate a rate of 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] of erosion per year. Since the length of the Niagara Falls gorge is about 7 miles [11 km], the age of the falls would be 5,000 to 10,000 years.

But, of course, the worldwide Flood, the existence of which is clearly established by rock strata and other geological evidence, would have been responsible for a massive amount of initial erosion of the falls

Quote:

42 - NIAGARA FALLS?-The French explorer, Hennepin, first mapped Niagara Falls in 1678. From that time until 1842, the falls eroded the cliff beneath them at a rate of about 7 feet [213 cm] per year. More recent calculations would indicate a rate of 3.5 feet [106.68 cm] of erosion per year. Since the length of the Niagara Falls gorge is about 7 miles [11 km], the age of the falls would be 5,000 to 10,000 years.

But, of course, the worldwide Flood, the existence of which is clearly established by rock strata and other geological evidence, would have been responsible for a massive amount of initial erosion of the falls

Wheres this worldwide evidence for a worldwide flood? Why its in RL's addled mind?




HE's worried about the fact that theres not enough SEA OOZE. -Its a dynamic planet RL, sea ooze is conveyor belted along the oceanic plates where it either subducts, or else becomes part of a continental shelf. How come that nowhere on earth do we see ocean basin edge sediments no older than the Jurassic? Maybe we can explain it with plate tectonics?

RL SAYs

Quote:

33 - OIL PRESSURE?-Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicate that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressure within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7,000-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.

"Why do we see an explosive gusher when a drill strikes oil? Because oil, like natural gas, is maintained in the earth at enormously high pressure?-about 5,000 pounds per square inch at a depth of 10,000 feet. Supposedly oil and gas have been lying there for millions of years. But how could they have lasted that long without leaking or otherwise dissipating those extreme pressures."?-James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 136

What does a strength of materials issue have to do with the age of the earth?

Ihad a donut with sprinkles this AM, therefore that proves the earth is 4.5 B Y old? (Thats a dramatization of course, but you get my point--I hope)

It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

parados wrote:

It's "interesting" that RL posts stories how the earth can't be 20,000 years old at the same time he posts stories of how man has been on the earth for millions of years.

Just pointing out that maporsche's rant is not even consistent with his own position. Not surprised that you missed the point though.

Not sure what any of FM's comments have to do with the rate of erosion of the falls.

Why are these deposits often under extreme pressure