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

real life wrote:

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.

Some things are uniform and some things aren't. What's so hard to understand about that?

real life wrote:

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

All key principles are appropriately applied in science and evolution.

What principles are you claiming are selectively applied?

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

RL, you remind me of that Iraqi Information Minister who was crowing about the invulnerability of Baghdad, even as US Marines were breaking down his door. Smile

What ever happened to that guy anyway.

http://www.dancingcows.co.uk/images/iraqi_information_minister.jpg

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

Well, I sure wouldn't refer to homo erectus as part of mankind. But if that's the definition you choose to use (or at least the one you'll apply in this instance) then fine.

My objection to that statement in your long cut and paste job would be.....well homo sapiens haven't been around for millions of years. The civilizations that the passage is referring to happened AFTER homo sapiens evoloved. There reason you don't see civilizations millions of years ago is that mankind (homo sapiens) hadn't yet evoloved to a stage where more advanced civilizations could form.

I hope all those other points aren't as easy to debunk.....

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

So then we can accept it as your position that man has been on the earth for millions of years? Or did I misread you again?

0 Replies

RL SAYs

Quote:

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)

0 Replies

The problem with RL's site is that it is using 1700s science.

It assumes that there is no such thing as radioactive decay.

It assumes that the earth's crust hasn't moved since it solidified. How else would they be able to claim the pressure has been there for millions of years?

0 Replies

RL again

Quote:

Did ole MAx understand global tectonics and overpressuring of plastic formations. Oil seeps are quite common in tectonic plate basins but not in "trailing edge" tectonic basins, I wonder why?

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

Ever hear of "Tar sands" or bitumen beds? The Chatanooga Formation is of Devonian age and is a fine example of relict oil shales where there were considerable petroleum reserves that have become residuals.

There is oil from Paleozoic,Mesozoic,and Cenozoic. And, there are modern clathrates being formed at the sea bottom this very evening.

Means nothing to the age of the earth(unless we do transuranic dating of the pools themselves then wed see that isotopes consistent with their geologic ages would prove you wrong)

0 Replies

RL says

Quote:

Please , please dont be fooled by this authauritatively composed piece of bullscat. We dont measure ZIRCON ratios to anythting. Zircon contains Uranium in variable amounts and its the U that decays to Pb210.
The properties of molecules of elements, especially radiogenic ones are different than entire hillsides of Pb 207. The Pb is bound in the zircons lattice , along with the mother U. So Gentry is once again talkin out his ass.. SAme thing goes with the helium story

0 Replies

Quote:

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?

0 Replies

I'd like to point out that Dr. John Baumgardner is seeking to prove Noah's Flood, but he admits that every thing he has come up with so far violates the Laws of Physics and therefore cannot be published or approved for teaching.

There is no way, he has admitted, to push his agenda without scientific backing. So he doesn't. All his geophysical papers use the same assumptions that all non-Creationist scientists use.

Now he's a Creationist that actually understands science.

Have you met him, FM?

0 Replies

Ive met Russ Humphries and John Baumgardner at nuke waste symposia. They are really quite competent guys who, obviously, dont preach their Creationist doctrine in groups of other earth scientists.

Baumgardner has mellowed over the years because his "Global tectonics " model has really not been upheld by any evidence. He cant make things move faster than physics allows, and besides, hes goten quite frustrated by all the geologists who, in their spare time, keep sending NON-evidence of flood deposits freom around the world.
Russ worked at Sandia and may be retired by now, Baumgardner worked at Los Alamos, and his big moment in the sun was when he garnered some time on the old Cray to do his number crunching.

"When the inputs of equations are in serious doubt, how can the output be any better"-

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

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?

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

If the falls were millions, no let's say they are only 100,000 years old, then the gorge should be much longer. Wassup?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL SAYs
Quote:

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)

No, what is your point?

Why are these deposits often under extreme pressure?

0 Replies

And just why should the falls be even 100,000 years old? Most of our present river system is a result, direct or indirect, of the melting glaciers when the last ice age ended around 10,000 years ago, and the huge masses of water unleashed in a relatively short period of time, that carved out new riverbeds. The past hasn't been uniform, but it's often roughly cyclic. Not everything is a billion years old, or even 100,000. Naiagara Falls don't say anything at all about some mythical Creation.

0 Replies

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.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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.

Yes, and which positions are those? I listed what was contradictory.

You only claim it is without saying why it is. But that is your usual MO. Make a vague statement so you can back away from it when challenged.

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

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

.

My dear friend, youve unknowingly merely stated what geomorphology has been saying all along, the Niagara Falls are remnant of Wisconsin Glacial meltwater, so the age of 10 to 12000 years is about right. In that respect, Im not suire why youve posted all that, were you assuming that geology only dels with Paleozoic rock?

Quote:

Why are these deposits often under extreme pressure

. And what does that have to do with ages of the earth? Im curious where you get your stuff?. Much oil gets pressurized in post diagenetic (formation mechanics) tectonics. The strength of materials issue is that many formations are overpressured when the oil migrates and formational boundaries do rupture, but they dont wait around, they rupture as a function of Darcy's law

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know