Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

The topic here is 'Don't tell me there's no evidence for evolution' and a favorite tactic of many of the evolutionists on board here is to try to change the subject whenever evolution is criticized.

aperson,

which is THE single greatest or strongest evidence THAT PROVES evolution, in your opinion?.

I too have often asked you (and you constantly dodge the question), what interlacing mass of (positive) evidence supports Creation?

i asked him what unambiguous evidence he had for a creation.

real, which is THE single greatest or strongest evidence THAT PROVES creation, in your opinion?

Why is it that evolutionists don't want to address the title subject of the thread, but constantly and consistently seek to change the subject?

Weve discussed radiometric dating (which you bagged out of when you heard that your favorite Creationist Dr Austin was being roasted by many geologiists in the GSA because his data was all basic crap)

Youve discussed the "Mountains are loaded with marine sediments (even though theres not a mountain on earth with a marine sediment layer on its top that displays original "horizontality' (as youd expect if the mountain werea depositional site). Then you sort of disapperaed when you got blasted by those cold facts

Nevertheless, the presence of coral and sediments atop some of the world's tallest mountains does show that they were at one time undersea NO MATTER WHAT ANGLE the layers are presently found at.

The fact that the areas were subsequently uplifted and tilted in the process does not negate the fact that they were once undersea, unless you can explain how coral got there if it never was undersea.

Nevertheless, the presence of coral and sediments atop some of the world's tallest mountains does show that they were at one time undersea NO MATTER WHAT ANGLE the layers are presently found at.

The fact that the areas were subsequently uplifted and tilted in the process does not negate the fact that they were once undersea, unless you can explain how coral got there if it never was undersea.

Far from 'bagging out', I've continually pressed you to make a case for the validity of K-Ar dating.

"The Tongariro volcanics unconformably overlie LATE MIOCENE marine siltstones beneath Hauhungatahi. A minimum age for the onset of vulcanism is indicated by the influx of andesite pebbles in EARLY PLEISTOCENE conglomerates of the Wanganui Basin to the south... Wilson (et al) suggest a maximum LATE PLIOCENE age of 2.0 Ma, based on K-Ar dating of the earliestlavas of the Hauhungarao cone...The oldest dated lava from the Tongariro Volcanic Center are hornblende andesites; exposed at Tama Tama Lakes between Ngauruhoe and Ruapehu, dated at 0.s6 +/-0.003 Ma.

YECs Dr. Steve A. Austin, Dr. Andrew A. Snelling (and also here) and MD Keith Swenson list the same set of old K-Ar 'dates' for some historical lava flows. The data were miscopied from Dalrymple (1969).

G. Brent Dalrymple is a geochronologist with 40 years experience, a pioneer in the identification of excess argon in igneous samples, and an outspoken critic of young-Earth creationism (e.g., Dalrymple, 1984). As part of his seminal work on excess argon, Dalrymple (1969) dated 26 historical lava flows with K-Ar to determine whether excess argon was present. Of the 26 lava flows that were sampled and analyzed, 18 of them gave expected results. That is, no excess 40Ar or 36Ar were present. Eight rocks yielded unrealistic dates, which were either too old because of the presence of excess 40Ar (5 of them) or too young (negative ages) because of the presence of excess 36Ar (3 of them). The details on the 8 anomalous samples are listed in Table 2 of Dalrymple (1969, p. 51), which is reproduced at Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There is No Excess Argon? The 5 samples with excessively old K-Ar dates include a Hualalai basalt from Hawaii (K-Ar 'dates' of 1.05 and 1.19 million years; the basalt erupted in 1800-1801 AD), two Mt. Etna basalts (a 'date' of 150,000 years for a sample that erupted in 1792 AD and a K-Ar 'date' of 100,000 years for the other sample, which erupted in 122 BC), a plagioclase from Mt. Lassen, California ('dated' at 130,000 years; erupted in 1915 AD), and a basalt from Sunset Crater, Arizona ('dated' at 210,000 and 220,000 years; erupted in 1064-1065 AD).

The author of Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There is No Excess Argon? attacks Snelling for misinterpreting Dalrymple (1969) and seriously overestimating the importance of excess argon in modern volcanics:

'Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple?s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple?s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.' [author's emphasis]

As discussed at Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There is No Excess Argon? and Dalrymple (1969, p. 49), the ONLY sample of the 26 that had significant excess argon also had very noticeable xenoliths (older rock contaminants that were incorporated into the magma as it rose through the Earth to the surface). Furthermore, as discussed in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968, p. 4603), once the xenoliths were removed, the remaining matrix provided an expected date of 'zero years' (also see: Fresh Lava Dated as 22 Million Years Old).

As further discussed in Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969, p. 121-144) and Dalrymple (1991, p. 91-92), Dalrymple concludes that excess argon is rare in volcanic rocks. In addition, excess argon is even less of a problem with Ar-Ar dating, where excess argon can often be distinguished from radiogenic argon and its effects eliminated (McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 123-130; Maluski et al., 1990).

As originally uncovered at Ar-Ar Dating Assumes There is No Excess Argon?, Snelling failed to properly quote the 'apparent K-Ar dates' from Table 2 in Dalrymple (1969, p. 51). That is, Snelling mistakenly listed the concentrations of 40Ar (in 10 to the -12 moles/gram) for the Hualalai, Mt. Etna (2 samples), Mt. Lassen, and Sunset Crater samples as their apparent K-Ar dates!! Austin and Swenson also contain the same erroneous data. For example, Austin, Snelling and Swenson all list the 'apparent K-Ar date' for the Hualalai basalt as '1.60 million years' instead of 1.19 million years. In reality, the Hualalai basalt had 1.60 x 10 to the -12 moles/gram of 40Ar.

Because Austin's essay is older, we can probably assume that these copying errors originated with him. Rather than checking the accuracy and relevancy of Austin's quotations from Dalrymple (1969), Snelling and Swenson simply uncritically parroted and perpetuated Austin's mistakes in their later web essays. This is truly a case of the blind leading the blind!!

SCHUMER: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...

SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

Quote:

Nevertheless, the presence of coral and sediments atop some of the world's tallest mountains does show that they were at one time undersea NO MATTER WHAT ANGLE the layers are presently found at.

The fact that the areas were subsequently uplifted and tilted in the process does not negate the fact that they were once undersea, unless you can explain how coral got there if it never was undersea.

. So the fact that the marine sediments were uplifted from their position AT THE BOTTOMN OF A SEA, does kinda belie your attempted argument that water reached the tops of mountains (as was your earlier position). Now you are altering your position to actually agree with science that marine deposits in angular repose along mountain sides and mountain tops are actually a post depositional tectonic phenomena, not any "proof" of a worldwide flood. Keep it up well make a reluctant scientist out of you yet, and your own words will lead you

Biblical Chronology sets The Flood about 2370 BCE. Are you saying the world repopulated itself with millions of people in just a few short years?

xingu wrote:

Biblical Chronology sets The Flood about 2370 BCE. Are you saying the world repopulated itself with millions of people in just a few short years?

Do the math. This is not a tough one, xingu.

The world's present population is easily achievable in the time frame you mention.

Old Kingdom
(3100 - 2181 B.C.E.)

The Old Kingdom was the period in which most of Egypt's pyramids were built; however, it was during the 3rd Dynasty when many of the first, relatively crude, pyramids were built. During the 4th Dynasty, all of the Great Pyramids at Giza were constructed. During this period, the exploitation of the Sinai Peninsula, which was rich in turquoise and copper, was taking place. Trade outside the Nile Valley began during the reign of Sahure. During the reign of Pepi I the Egyptian army was organized by General Weni and a warrior caste developed. The Old Kingdom came to an end with the death of Pepi II. Following his death, the central government collapsed. This brought about a period of turmoil known as the 1st Intermediate Period.

Tell me how is no more than 5 years one family will populate the world, including N and S America, build civilizations from scratch and carry on a civilization that existed before the flood.

Explain to me how the Egyptian Empire was wiped out and instanteously appeared after the flood.

xing wrote:

Tell me how is no more than 5 years one family will populate the world, including N and S America, build civilizations from scratch and carry on a civilization that existed before the flood.

Explain to me how the Egyptian Empire was wiped out and instanteously appeared after the flood.

Why would I defend something like this that I did not say?

real life wrote:

xing wrote:

Tell me how is no more than 5 years one family will populate the world, including N and S America, build civilizations from scratch and carry on a civilization that existed before the flood.

Explain to me how the Egyptian Empire was wiped out and instanteously appeared after the flood.

Why would I defend something like this that I did not say?

Can't explain that one can you; so now your trying to weasel out.

So typical of you.