The Basic stupidity of evolution and evolosers

The problem I have with heavy metal dating schemes is that according to the standard theory of the planets in our system forming up from swirling masses of solar material originally, heavy metals should all be at the center of the Earth.

In other words, it could easily be that heavy metals all got here via impact events in which case ages derived from them would pertain to the metals, but not to anything else. It is also possible that heavy metals near the surface arose from plasma physics events which as the dynamic duo of Talbott/Thornhill describe, in which case none of them would be terribly old.

You and others are assuming that such metals have been laying around near the surface of our planet for tens and hundreds of millions of years peacefully decaying to their present states.

One other non-religious point of view:

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769

Yes , but your "Answers in Genesis" and Kent Hovind's ministry guys say that and you dont deny it. SO in many minds you endorse it. No?

so, according to you, ALL metals above a certain At Wt Ahould be residing in the ceter of the earth?

Do you not agree that the earth was being bombarded throughout its history, If the earth is a dynamic system, why cant things move? Besides, you are begging the issue by calling it only 'heavy metal dating".

The argument you have with your dino fossil and the "Soft tissue" isnt with Uranium dating its with C14 versus Potassium ARgon ARgon. . carbon versus alkalis




The standard theory of the BIg BAng says that there probably wasnt any element heavier than He after the BB occured. AS suns and galaxies coalesced only then were the "heavier elements" forged.


"We are stardust, we are golden
we are Billion year old carbon"

BB is a bunch of bullshit.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened

Big Bang Theory Makes Sense of Cosmic Facts; No Contradiction

Although Mr Lerner has a BS in Physics, he has made a career in popular science writing and since he published the "Big Bang Never Happened" in 1991 as based partially upon Plasma Cosmology, it has been discredited as a viable hypothesis in the early 90's by many others in the field as not being able to answer many cosmological observations.

In the past 20 years Mr Lerner apparently has dropped his interest in cosmology as he has moved onto other activities.

Rap

Understanding BB does not require a PHD in physics, a basic grasp of logic will suffice.

BB is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package:

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes. Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly decide, at ANY point in time, that it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him previously, is idiotic.

There are three super stupid theories out there in the science world, that is, evolution, big bang, and "string" theory. No rational person should believe in any of them.

The problem, gunge, is that with two of those three 'theories' have evidence and observation that support those theories. Although all are supported by Occam's Razor.

Evolution--observation is overwhelmingly supportive of Natural Selection from several different scientific disciplines (Genetics, Microbiology, Taxonomy, Geology, Biochemistry, et al) --How you choose to close your mind to that evidence is not my problem.

Big Bang--Hubble's expansion, background radiation, and relative abundance of elements in the universe all provide support the BBT.

String (rather Superstring) Theory--at present this one is more of a hypothesis; however, preliminary results of some experiments at the Large Haldron Collider may provide some supporting evidence. At present though I'll agree with you--the jury is still out on this one.

Rap

No, you still don't get it. I wasn't criticizing your content, but rather your rhetorical style. All you needed to do was point out that his anaology was flawed. Any more detailed response is wasted on Gunga, who will be peddling the same BS again, and probably in the near future.

for you deefecult , for me eassseee.

No, it ain't about difficulty, it's about futility. Consider, for example, my recent response to his bullshit to the effect that thee were no wars in Europe between 1815 and 1914, claiming that the wars of the 20th century were caused by "Darwinism." I thoroughly demolished that bullshit about six or eight months ago, and he resurrects it now. It's the same with what you post. Are you happy to post that **** time and time again? I certainly won't be playing his games again. You can spend all that time and energy, and he'll come back with the same bullshit again in a few months, maybe even as soon as a few weeks.

"Amalgam"==usually a mixture of a noble metal (silver, gold, platinum) with mercury , either in an oxide or liquidus. ( Amalgam of gold and mercury, called moschellandsbergite is commonly called "white gold". "Amalgams" occure in the way that we ascribe to a "Solid solution" in which phases of elements can admix in liquid/solid, solid/slodi. or liquid/liquid.
My attempt at a bit of "humor" had apparently flown over your head , so please refrain from your pot calling my skillet names.

Please pick fights with someone who gives a ****.

I wasn't picking a fight, and i didn't miss the significance of amalgam. But you do so love to condescend. You sure have a hair-trigger temper--i put it down to the academic's inability to take criticism.

You say you have "trouble" with "heavy metal" dating techniques yet youve ignored my comment that many dating techniques are using light elements . The only common features are that each method depends upon a constant decay rate for particlular radioisotopes, followed by the decay production fo one or more "daughter" products.

Out of nothing more than ignorance Youve dismissed a TOOL that is key to te workings from everything from "Atomic clocks, nuclear weapons and energy,and use of radioisotopes in medicine. All these are separate to isotope dating techniques.

I understand that the denial of such phenom as nuclear decay would make your worldview a lot simpler to swallow. Dismissal of evidence counter to a firmly held belief is often the best way to keep from having your head explode from too much conflicting input. Still, you try to come across as someone who "thinks" about stuff. I cannot believe that you actually buy into entire ranks of myth and science fiction without giving a sideways glance at all the stuff that has piled up against it. You effortlessly buy into crap that is presented at 3AM on a nationwide radio kookfest, yet you deny tons of scientific evidence that only gets stronger day by day.
Youre in a no win situation and I think you should look more at trying to figure out how to accomodate your deeply held religious beliefs with the real world and its physical laws.

Thunderbolts forum (non-religious) thread on evidence of recent formation of Earth's crust:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5769



The thread includes discussion of other evidence as well.

This is not evidence, it is bullshit printed to hopefully fool the idiots like you. Ive been to several of these sites (Have you?) Id like to doiscuss them in detalil but let me first remind you that, in true gunga smoke fashion, you quit trying to hide behind your baseless assertions about "heavy metal dating" (a silly term that must have been coined by some Creationist blogger)

The Patagonian ALps is an area on which I I have really good data (and experience). WHen the subduction of Chile began over 10 Million years ago, the entire Patagonian sub massif has been graduallly uplifted with numerous deep mantle and shallow acidic volcanics (Its one of the reasons why we search for minerals there).
The continuing uplift of the plateau coincides with continental glaciation that extended from the Pliocene till present. Several volcanic ash deposits and volcanic tephra deposits from pyroclastic flows and basaltic layers that interlay many glacial moraines and therefore provide us with pretty accurate dating information of the contuing saga of Patagonias uplift

In the beginning--the rocks of the sedimentary layers that form the basis of the Patagonian ALps are dated carefully and extend from around 400my till the post split time of Gondwana about 130 my ago (in which the pAtagonian sub massif was a participant) There are sedimentary basins and fractures filled with igneous "sauces". All these nicely fit the dating models of Gondwana's split from Africa so nicely discussed in Rogers and Santosh (2004) (This has been a book Ive recommended to you many times before but alas you seem to want to stick to unregulated garbage on the web)
The sediments and tye sedimenatry basins of PAtagonia are niocely cross stitched with volcanic infillings that point , in several events, to the direction of continental separation. Continental basins infilled in the time from the Cretaceous through the Miocene when Chile began to be subducted and the entire area uplifted >I am mentioning all this because each uplift, basin deposition, volcanic suture, and subduction caused acidic volcanoes enavb;es us to date the events and sediments and magmas. Then , as the continental glaciations began worldwide, the Patagonian Ice sheet imprinted itself via several continental and over 19 different piedmont moraines.
Your "thunderbolt guys" are arguing that the last thing that occured in this area was the raising of "Young mountains" Thats total uneducated bullshit because theres a track of events over 400 million years old and within which, each event can be dated sequetially and (I may say) precisely.

The fact that growing mountains continue to rebound after the glaciers have left is not surprising.

The oly idiocy with the Thunderbolt guys is that they fail to see that, while some events certainly do occur post glacially, the entire story of the Fitzroy mountains is a very very old one.

Its like the Creationists have made a case for a yound Grand CAnyon. Because they see the erosion of the grand canyon as a riverine and uplift event, they say the gRand Canyon is young. They fail to recognize that the Grand CAnyon was being cut through rocks that were as old as the Canadian Shield at the bottom (In fact the very base of the Grand CAnyon IS the Canadian SHield)

You guys have to learn that many people wont let you get away with such hyperbole where you take a little bit of observed data and stretch it waaaay beyond credulity. People in the field take these bullshit postings with a degree of annoyance because youre basing some idiotic conclusion on misuse and misaaplication of limited data. You take it for granted that most people who are NOT in the field will blindly buy their junk.

There are others of your above list that I personally know of and have visited. Id spend time refuting em also and then probably could assume that all of the rest of the points are crap too.

If youd spend a little time reading some real science rather than scurrying around dregging up websites published by loonies youd be much farther along . However, Im certain that scientific truth and accuracy isnt really what youre hunting for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cR2_FX3poA

Its bullshit because some wag, after looking at a bunch of photos "of the day" came up with some wildass hypotheses without ever even reading a scant piece of work thats already been done on the subject.

Your penchant for presenting that tripe is a pathetic cry that you make to try to attain a mean amount of credibility. Im here to tell ya gunga, by hanging on to these "Electric universe" threads as if they have answers for physics and other sciences is not only pathetic, its stupid . IT goes beyond theology and into fairy tales.

I assume you will ignore my comments and questions regarding radiochemistry. Ats all right, Ive grown to expect nothing less from you.

Hiows those Apey Neanderthals doig? HAs your buddy Vebdramini gotten any farther trying to push his books for these apelike creatures?

Wonder what your next bit of wackiness is gonna be. No matter what, you are a bit of Benny Hill in an otherwise boring site

No the dating isnt wrong. Its quite consistent. The desert itself is not mkeasured by the radioisotopic ages of feldspar sand grains, its dated by several factors
1extent in history
2intercalated volcanic ash deposits
3cultural features and artifacts
4fossils
5stratigrapgy
6 remnant magnetics

The values of 6000 years old is merely the last drying period (post glacial effect). During the pleistocene the sahara extended even further south and into the ATlnatic coastal plain to the west, than it extends today.
A desrt is a "living" landform, a;ways growing and shrinking. We have evidence from the sediments ion the Med and faryher east in teh Sahil, that the Sahara actually BEGAN somewhere about 5.5 million years ago (This range isnt a firm estimate . However ITS NOT MERELY 6000 years old)
Your electric universe buds have their heads upn their asses again.

The article states:



Learn to read.

Did all the extraterrestrial sand arrive shortly after all the extraterrestrial water did that caused the flood?

Wouldn't that much matter arriving from outer space have some impact record that we would be able to find? Or has physics changed in the last 6000 years too?