THE TRUTH ABOUT DINOSAURS - NEW FINDINGS IN ARGENTINA REVEAL IT ALL (documentary/truth)
John Docs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jTefmn8Vs
- I
- Belegur Mastema
- How do they know the deepness of the ground determines the age the fossil comes from?
- jack snakes
- Not necessarily the depth, but it is reasonable to assume that the deeper a piece of ground is, the more ground there is on top of it and that this would have taken a while. It takes longer to put a lot of ground on top of rock than a little bit of ground so, the more ground on top of a rock, the older it probably is. You also have the other organisms in the layers around it which give an idea of age.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Actually they do not know that.
Deepness only determines relative earliness or lateness of stones that are on top of each other.
But whether this means millions of years or a few weeks or months during flood is not the same question.
FOSSILS actually as far as I have seen seldom or never come from different levels on the same spot. And therefore we cannot say that such and such fossils come from different ages than such and such other ones.
- vince gredo
- Radio carbon dating
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- vince gredo, C14 is usually not used to determine ages from Cretaceous.
The rare exceptions have to be hidden from the labs and it happens they give much more recent dates.
- Jean-Pol Salteur
- and how do you know it's not so...because you don't understand it? good reason indeed....why don't you get yourself a Phd in paleontology and prove them all wrong, that would be a lot more clever than to come on you tube and leave a little sentence, don't you think.....oh wait, no you don't indeed
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- was that to me, Jean-Pol Salteur?
I have gone over some parts (including Karoo) of the palaeocritti site ...
Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
http://www.palaeocritti.com/home
... in some detail, since they seem to be closing in 2016, and I am doing a back up blog, so it can remain online:
Palaeocritti Blog
[a back up blog]
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com
None of what I have seen so far contradicts the conclusions I made after sorting up the wikipedia list of fossil sites, all so far confirm my initial suspicion:
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html
Creation vs. Evolution : How do Fossils Superpose?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-do-fossils-superpose.html
(contains links to the SORTED version of wiki list of fossil sites)
Creation vs. Evolution : Searching for the Cretaceous Fauna (with appendix on Karoo, Beaufort)
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/searching-for-cretaceous-fauna-with.html
Creation vs. Evolution : What I think I have refuted
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-i-think-i-have-refuted.html
Creation vs. Evolution : Glenn Morton caught abusing words other people were taught as very small children
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/glenn-morton-caught-abusing-words-other.html
I don't think I'll get a PhD for it, but I think as far as THIS debate is concerned, I have done a better job than those who have a PhD.
What's your beef with my posting comments on youtube, that is what you are doing?
Maybe the fact I am saying this instead of bolstering the reputation of some?
- Mike Hardman
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl the only problem with reciting educators is this. they can lie too,. you just wont bother to acknowledge it and generation upon generations will use this belief system as reality.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Mike Hardman - where exactly do you consider that I am "reciting educators"? What exactly is it that I won't acknowledge? What words of mine are you referring to, back it up, if you think I came off as an Evolutionist!
- Mike Hardman
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl i was saying humans in general... and all those links you posted(reciting educators),... science is proven wrong daily, tree lobster, caelocanth, great apes, frilled shark , canined deer, yada yada,... plus they have found a dino corpse,. earth layers requiring great expanses of time to form seen formed in 1 day multiple layers.. and so on,.with vertical trees going through multipal layers,. all fosils are made/preserved by 1 method , quickly being covered up, knowing a mountain of layers can form in a day yet dubbing every layer millions of years,,, and i didnt even say evolutionist.. so i have to assume you're just trolling.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In the links I posted, I was NOT reciting educators. I was giving my conclusions as a YEC. Yes, Young (as in 6000 - 7200 sth years) Earth (and universe too) Creationist (and Bible believer in other respects too).
The site palaeocritti has been sorely neglected by Protestant creationist ministries. It is run by evolution believers, but it is one rare place where they give the hard facts (or sth approaching it) behind labels like "Cretaceous" and "Permian" and so on.
These hard facts suggest to me, that these labels are not (as far as fossils go, stones are another matter) superposed or suggesting (except very piled places like GC) "a general flood order", but rather geographic either biotopes or near such at the time when the Flood struck. If a place in Noah's day had ducks and ceratopsians in shallow coast waters with lost of shrimps in the outlying sea, well, it will still show ceratopsians and ducks all buried in limestone made from such shrimps reacting chemically in a very brief and mortal moment to make the limestone so high, and it will be labelled "Creataceous".
That is what I want to get out before palaeocritti site closes in 2016 - we are already 2015 by now - and that is where my own back up blog comes in.
I think the lack of interest they get from fellow Evolutionists comes from a kind of insight (hidden by intrigue or hidden from themselves by "denial") that this time they blew it for evolution, most specifically for "geologic column".
- "Jeez S. Christ"
(he didn't use quotation marks, but I'll be doing so)
(I'm not recommending him just because I am linking) - +Hans-Georg Lundahl You are not wise enough to debate, come back when you quit believing in Santa Claus.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Debating is not just for those who are wise enough.
And a man wo takes a screen name that refers disrespectfully to Our Lord Jesus Christ is anyway not the best guy to tell anyone who is wise enough for anything.
- "Jeez S. Christ"
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl If you still believe in Santa Claus you are ill-equipped for being taken seriously. I am your Lord and Savior and ye dare to insult me. I am the Son of Jor-El, I mean Elohim, and I will be sending you to hell for believing in Santa Claus.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, you are a scoffer.
And I am anyway ill equipped for being taken seriously by scoffers.
And being taken seriously is not a prerequisite for debating anyway.
And I do believe in Saint Nicholas - meaning the bishop who punched the archheretic Arius during the Council of Nice. So does any Catholic.
- Ben Lutz
- The depth of rocks below the current surface is actually a poor indicator of when those sedimentary rocks formed, or as we say were consolidated. The positions of layers relative to each other can be used to say that one layer was earlier or later than another, so we can say which is relatively newer or older than that. Geology though is a rich, well developed science, and other techniques can be used to get better dates than "newer" or "older". Say if a nearby region is immediately overlain by basaltic rocks from volcanoes, those boundaries can be measured much more precisely by radiometric dating of Potassium 40 to Argon 40 ratios, for example. There are many other methods of dating as well, and if you're interested in how it is really done, as well as the application and limitations of particular tequniques, many books and courses are available to help.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The positions of layers relative to each other can be used to say that one layer was earlier or later than another, so we can say which is relatively newer or older than that."
Sure. I agree - as far as stones are concerned.
As to bones, usually only one of the stone layers contains fossils.
At least as far as I have hitherto verified, month after month every instance I looked at specific evidence.
As to stones again, the relative succession may have taken longer or shorter time, the full time scale may either be sth like millions of years, as you contend, or sth like about a year from onset of Flood to recession of Flood waters.
"Say if a nearby region is immediately overlain by basaltic rocks from volcanoes, those boundaries can be measured much more precisely by radiometric dating of Potassium 40 to Argon 40 ratios, for example."
Unless the Potassium Argon ratio is worthless every time when actually tested against other evidence, such as historic knowledge of eruption or compared C14 dating. Which we creationists consider to be the case.
"There are many other methods of dating as well, and if you're interested in how it is really done, as well as the application and limitations of particular tequniques, many books and courses are available to help."
So is wikipedia. As far as I can tell, most places with fossil finds or meteorites are dated one way only, basically. And the half lives longer than that of C14 may not even be very reliably measured.
Bill Nye the science guy claims that measuring halflives is necessary for smoke detectors - but the half lives concerned in them is far shorter than C14, just a few centuries.
- Ben Lutz
- Fossils could hardly have been consolidated within sedimentary rocks Before or After those rocks were themselves consolidated - that would be silly. And that is why the age of the animals or plants fossilized can reliably be placed within the time of the rocks deposition.
Next, the idea that radioactive decay rates vary over time is a simple myth. There is no known mechanism for altering the decay rate for any of the many radioactive elements short of a nuclear reactor, or bomb. It just doesn't happen. These decay rates are tabulated to very prices degrees in handbooks that engineers, physicists and chemists use every day.
In short, neither lack of knowledge in a subject nor citing hoaxes like Ica stones is any substitute for really learning about it or arguing a point of ignorance because "some guy in a bar [or church] told me...." There are too many ways to find real answers to such questions. It's just not as easy.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "And that is why the age of the animals or plants fossilized can reliably be placed within the time of the rocks deposition."
Meaning that if ALL rocks are from Flood, ALL fossils are from Flood. So, what is your point?
"Next, the idea that radioactive decay rates vary over time is a simple myth."
I never said they did. Except for occasions when decay is hastened by radioactivity. You know, in Nuclear Plants, Uranium is decaying lots faster than usual decay rate. That was also the case at Hiroshima and more recently in Fukushima.
Oh, you said so: "short of a nuclear reactor, or bomb. It just doesn't happen."
Well, what if Nodian civilisation (pre-Flood east of Eden) had nuclear warfare? For instance.
But this is not my main argument.
I said, and I repeat : half lives longer than that of C14 may very well not even have been accurately measured in the first place.
Being able to accurately measure half life of the Uranium isotope used in UPb method or of Potassium 40 would imply one can accurately measure the half lives involved in smoke detectors. BUT accurately measuring the half lives involved in smoke detectors does NOT strictly imply a real ability to measure that of Uranium or K40. Note there are other problems too.
In K-Ar, what about Ar coming from air? In UPb and ThPb - what about relevant isotope being there from the start?
Whichever the fault may be - I am due to Bible sure there is one - even more relevant : we have no way to check half life measures being right beyond the checking of C14 by historical material. Which in its turn means post-Flood material.
"These decay rates are tabulated to very prices degrees in handbooks that engineers, physicists and chemists use every day."
Possibly. But when it comes to decay rate of U or Potassium 40, these handbooks just could lead all of these astray every day.
Unlike the halflife for Americium which is used in smoke detectors, it is very short - and correspondingly so much easier to measure directly accurately.
"There are too many ways to find real answers to such questions."
Both other creationists and I use them to the full. Just trusting the experts is NOT using them to the full. You have to check what the loopholes are too. I and other creationists have, you haven't.
- "Jeez S. Christ"
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Keep wasting breath and time on your pursuit of total nonsense. It is clear you have no understanding of elemental chemistry.
Go to a Community College Earth Science class and get back to me.
Stupid [omitted].
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Your last incivility (barbaric even when adressed to a woman, stupid on top of that when adressed to a man) matches your scoffing against Our Lord.
I do not know where YOU get the idea I am bad at chemistry. I'm not. You can of course tell Potassium from Argon - that is pretty basic in chemistry - but how do you tell Argon which is ex-Potassium from Argon come from the air? For instance.
- Ben Lutz
- the last was not intended to be uncivil, merely informative - THIS however is:
please poke two holes in your tinfoil hat where your eyes should be and read a book through them. And while you're at it you might want to look at the 9th commandment if you are so fond of that one single book before promulgating any more false witness (lies) concerning reality.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Ben Lutz - I was not accusing YOU of being uncivil. I was answering the guy whose screen name is irreverent to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Have you blocked him? Are you one and same? Or did you simply not look further than my last comment?
My answer to you is further up on the thread. It starts out with a quote from you. Then it is answered. Next quote - next answer. And NO accusations of YOU being uncivil.
- Ben Lutz
- Ahh, I was wondering! This seems to have degraded into a useless flame war - I for one will simply finish where I intended to in the first place then,
There really Are real answers to these questions. They can be found in books, college courses, online lectures and tons of other information - many tons. I urge anyone to go ahead and look at them. There is no reason to satisfy oneself with any simple answer, especially one as unsatisfying as a storybook that predates it's own creation myth. Sorry, but that really IS true.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Between us two there was no flame war, and I am trying to keep reasonably civil even with that other guy. Reasonably - not so as to coddle a blasphemer or scoffer.
You can feel free to substantiate the last point.
However, the books you refer to are only giving "real answers" if we know the basic story behind the method is the true one.
Like C14 never having gone up in atmosphere DURING the time we are using it for. - Ben Lutz
- Ok, Nuts to the flamers :)
On the origins of the flood myth predating the bible, the first flood myth I know of is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from roughly 2100 BCE, and the genesis story from the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish from some 1700 BCE. The earliest books of the bible were Job at about 700 BCE, and the Pentateuch at about 500 BCE. I've been looking for a good reference, but for a youtube comment I'll just suggest the Wikipedia article "Historicity of the Bible" - NOT because Wikipedia is some kind of gospel itself, but for the reading listg in the references on this page. I've read some of them. The point is that some of the stories in the Pentateuch exist in other forms predating the bible by 1000 years.
C14 - Yes! in fact the content of C14 in the atmosphere Has varied over the extent of it's useful time frame - and these variations are well documented according to general percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, solar and cosmic radiation levels, etc. The concentration can be compared to air bubbles in ice cores. C14 levels in known samples, such as tree cores going back some 20,000 years now, and I'm sure other methods. The variations in C14 original concentrations are well understood, and compensated for in dating measurements. It is also well understood that Carbon dating is not possible for marine organisms, even though this limitation is so often cited as a "flaw" to dismiss the entire method without understanding why.
- Brooks Anderson
- The "law" of superposition. In an undisturbed sedimentary geologic sequence, the rocks on the bottom are the oldest.If you think about it sediments (the precursors of sedimentary rocks) cannot be deposited in midair followed by younger sediments being deposited under it. Fortunately, sedimentary geology is simple unlike physics and chemistry. You can even do experiments at home. Collecting fossils can be great fun! Good luck!
- Mike Hardman
- +Brooks Anderson plate techtonics ,... layers get shuffled constantly. and every site you see exposed layers,..layer 4 rows of sand and push it all square 1 foot.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "the first flood myth I know of is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from roughly 2100 BCE, and the genesis story from the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish from some 1700 BCE."
Sure, the flood ACCOUNTS may be earlier than the Biblical Flood ACCOUNT.
But not than the Flood.
All these accounts are centuries after the Flood. If LXX text is correct and St Jerome got it correct, Flood was 2957 BC.
Plus, datings 2100 BC and 1700 BC may be somewhat off too. Have you checked out such things as long, middle short chronologies for Mesopotamia? Or, if datings are per C14 dating of organic material associated with the clay tablets, how do you know that C14 content of atmosphere was not lower back when the tablets are from?
I don't see how even your being right would amount to Genesis being "a storybook that predates it's own creation myth."
Genesis was written around 1510 BC (date of Exodus acc. to St Jerome), give or take 40 years and that does not predate either 1700 BC nor 2100 BC as to "myth" nor 5199 BC as to actual event.
"The earliest books of the bible were Job at about 700 BCE, and the Pentateuch at about 500 BCE."
Oh, you are taking THOSE dates, making Ezra the author of the works of Moses basically!
Why not try out if Apollonius Rhodus can have written Homer, while you are at it!
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Imagine Someone Said: Apollonius Rhodus Wrote Iliad and Odyssey
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/08/imagine-someone-said-apollonius-rhodus.html
"The point is that some of the stories in the Pentateuch exist in other forms predating the bible by 1000 years."
Well, in that case it would be "predated by" its own creation myth, not predating it.
Now, I do not believe one moment Job was written 700 BC or Pentateuch 500 BC, and as to the literature the wiki article lists, it will not list any reference which is CREDIBLE to me, since modern scholarship rearranging traditional authorships to make works much later than hitherto though (like putting St Matthew in the 80's instead of say 34 or 37 AD) is not a credible piece of evidence.
But even if we take out that red herring, it is obvious that Genesis must be based on older either oral or written documents vastly predating the final redaction of Genesis by Moses. And these - or some of them and at least an oral rumour of them - must if the account is true also have been accessible to the ancestors of the Babylonians. Which is why the Babylonian version need not have been the original for Genesis, just because it is older. A possibility non-Christian or Modernist "Christian" scholars studying this literary parallel over a century have studiously ignored. But I am not just ignoring their take on it.
Suppose Babylonians had either invented the Flood myth from scratch or by accident through misunderstanding the real scope of a local Flood. We can see how it came to come to Sweden along with Odin, if Odin was plagiarising Babylonian/Assyrian mythology (the creation work he claimed to have done is obviously plagiarism of Marduk killing Tiamat myth - with a few modifications to make it somewhta less cynical - such as saving Bergelmer, the closest relative to mum and grandma, among the giants by giving him a ship, thus making Flood and Creation coincide - which reminds of Egyptian mythology, where creation myth has sth to do with how the Earth looked post-Flood). But just suppose they had. Why did Swedes accept it? Well, either they had not bothered to keep records previous to getting Odin or Odinism managed to either vampyrise or suppress records previous to it. But why would Greece also have plagiarised Flood myth?
I can say why Greece places it so late, namely because a late placing of Flood, just a few generations before Trojan War, was ideal to suppress memory of the Hittites. But was borrowing the Flood myth really necessary to achieve that if they had not had any memories of their own ancestry from the Flood?
Say Babylonians ONLY (or rather Sumerians and Akkadians only) experienced a real local Flood. There were people outside that area. Some of them had had continuous records. When Babylonians came along and told of Flood having happened, why didn't they just say "that must have been local, our ancestry covers no flood survivors"?
Instead, Greek Flood myth is not only there, but also influenced by the story of Abraham and Lot. Childless and hospitable couple before disaster? Abraham and Sarah, who received three angels (and Deucalion and Pyrrha received three gods). Conundrum of repopulation after disaster? Well, what were Lot's daughters asking themselves? THAT has influenced Greek Flood myth, while destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah itself is studiously forgotten. Perhaps because Greeks since Hercules (or some generation later, and involving bad rumours about Hercules) had proned paederasty as an introduction to manhood.
"C14 - Yes! in fact the content of C14 in the atmosphere Has varied over the extent of it's useful time frame - and these variations are well documented according to general percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, solar and cosmic radiation levels, etc."
You are mixing apples and oranges.
I am not talking about variations, I am talking about original build up phase.
"The concentration can be compared to air bubbles in ice cores."
Wait, are you serious? An air bubble getting caught in an ice core has same concentration of C14 as atmosphere at the time. THEN the C14 content sinks in that air bubble, just as it does in a fossil. Plus ice cores are no useful independent dating compared to C14 anyway.
"C14 levels in known samples, such as tree cores going back some 20,000 years now, and I'm sure other methods."
Sorry, but I don't know of any known tree ring series that reaches straight FROM present to 20.000 years ago. There are more than one series, and some are dated through C14 as reaching back 20.000 years - plus I don't think the matches are always the best rather than those that best match "long age" dating concerns.
"The variations in C14 original concentrations are well understood, and compensated for in dating measurements."
Well, but if we are NOT dealing with the variations you think, but with the initial buildup, thenTHAT is what we should compensate for. Like Tas Walker does here, though I think he is wrong [in minor detail, not overall], since placing Flood too recently (c. 2400 BC rather than 2957 BC):
BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/preliminary-age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period/
"It is also well understood that Carbon dating is not possible for marine organisms, even though this limitation is so often cited as a 'flaw' to dismiss the entire method without understanding why."
1) It is a logical flaw, since it is one admitted example of C14 measures not proving the dates they would; 2) If it is there, it is at least conceivable there are other flaws, unlike this one not admitted. My fav. is of course the initial build up flaw.
+Brooks Anderson
"In an undisturbed sedimentary geologic sequence, the rocks on the bottom are the oldest.If you think about it sediments (the precursors of sedimentary rocks) cannot be deposited in midair followed by younger sediments being deposited under it."
The law of superposition is of course admitted by Flood Geologists too.
Say you have three or four clearly differentiated rock types in a hill. Obviously the lower ones were deposed before the higher ones. I would not even think there were many cases of the sequence being disturbed.
BUT - was the lowest one deposed millions of years before the highest one or within some months before the highest one during Flood? The law of superposition, which was formulated by Nicholas Steno, who was a Flood Geologist, not a deep timer, does not specify that. "Older" does not specify "how much older".
As to bones instead of stones, there is no area where vertebrates are vertically superposed in periods of the geological column. That I know of, and I have looked. Carefully.
+Mike Hardman
Nice reply, but according to what I found out not necessary. It is deep timers who want a lot of disturbed sequences because that gives some kind of excuse for otherwise inexplicable "misplaced fossils". Not we.
- Omitting, so far,
- another insult from "Jeez S. Christ" who seems to want a flame war. Well, if he's insulting Our Lord Jesus Christ, I sure can't see why I should be spared. Though, cowardly as I am, I'd like to. Btw, make that two insults. Oh, three. But he'll return after my reply here:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You know, the last three comments of yours give no argument, so I am simply omitting them from the mirroring blogpost:
[linking here]
+Ben Lutz , +Brooks Anderson - I might just take the opportunity to tell you, your comments are now visible here, and better so than the last ones of that other guy:
[linking here, again]
The other persons involved have already been contacted (including that mocker), but you two - there was a glitch when I tried, both on youtube channel and on google+ hangout.
- Brooks Anderson
- Thanks for the reply.Sorry about the glitch. I'm in Mexico and not all our systems are world compatible.
Mike Hardman: I am well aware of plate tectonics. I used to teach the subject. Please note that I wrote In an "undesturbed" sequence the lower laqyers are the oldest. I would allow for simple uplift. In fact, for a competent sedimentary geologist, it is not difficult to determine "right side up" in most stratified rocks. (True, the California Coastal Ranges are are a melange and NOT easily sorted out.)
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No problem, I am not even sure it was your Mexican system ...
"the California Coastal Ranges are are a melange and NOT easily sorted out"
What seems to be the problem?
- "Jeez S. Christ"
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Who the [blip] cares about your deumbass blog? [blip] your blog, and [blip] YOUU!
Don't like being relegated to dumb-[blip]ery? Quit trying to espouse such bullshit in your arguments. You see, the dumb things you are saying do not warrant an argument. You are in need of massive public shaming and name-calling, you are a [blip]ing idiot and you argue a really dumb [blip]ing argument.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You are shaming yourself - massively.
By the way, yesterday it might have been overdoing Mardi Gras and alcohol not agreeing with your good temper. But today is Ash Wednesday. If you go on today, you start looking like an illmannered sectarian. Did you have P Z Myers or some equally biassed type, say DeGrasse Tyson as a schoolteacher? Or what?
- "Jeez S. Christ"
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm eatin' my punchkie Donuts and getting very fat and have no intention of giving up anything for Lent. Which is not a thing anyway.
I am an ill mannered [blip], and an [blip] to boot, but that doesn't excuse your poor use of bad interpretations of science to claim some kind of intellectual victory in a subject and topic that has been independently verified nine-million times over. But no, really keep pounding your dead horse until the dust comes out.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yes, sure. Evolution is a dead horse. I'm beating it.
- auchucknorris
- ... radio dating based on the consistent decay rate of uranium into iron, the fact that those rock layers are formed by sediment, the bottom of the rock is older because the layers above it are build up by layers of sedment over the years.. you have google, look it up
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @auchucknorris- both points already answered. Look up previous parts of thread.
Besides, the Uranium decay is into lead, not iron.
- auchucknorris
- when i look the comment section was bugged, said it had no replies and there was only 6 comments.. most about people walking with dinosours..., and ow ye, my bad, i mean lead
- Brooks Anderson
- O.K. You are correct and "typos" happen.
- auchucknorris
- +Brooks Anderson not so much typo was just mixing up which was the heaviest stable element
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- OK, no problem. Now you can consult the hitherto replies on my post, in case it bugs here again.
Slight reminders, linking to own material, where I have argued more in full, previously:
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html
New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html
- auchucknorris
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl lol who are the links for?.. i know how it works and believe the science is pretty solid
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- They are for you so you get a real close look at some of the finer details - and maybe think again.
- auchucknorris
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl ..... you seem like an annoying person, why are you linking some one who isnt questioning? to answer the ACTUAL question "how we know" the only necessary information is that elements above lead are unstable and decay and at a measurable rate, so by measuring the the quantities of lead to uranium we can tell how long its taken to turn into lead. anything more than that is you trying to satisfy YOUR OWN NEED for gratification... thats when you cross the line from answering a question and informing to being an annoying dick, especially when its to some one who agrees with the principal and isnt asking the question, then your just trying to get into a dick measuring contest about "i know this much haa haa" and seeing as im not a sad [blip] i wont be bothering it soz
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "why are you linking some one who isnt questioning?" - well you were questioning : "lol who are the links for?"
"to answer the ACTUAL question "how we know" the only necessary information is that elements above lead are unstable and decay and at a measurable rate, so by measuring the the quantities of lead to uranium we can tell how long its taken to turn into lead"
If you had read my link, you might have had a hunch why it is unreliable.
U - Pb depends a lot on assuming such and such an isotope of U turns into such and such an isotope of Pb and nothing else does. You assume every Pb comes from the U.
For one other problem, when it comes to halflife or at least half that time (with sqrt(1/2) = 71% approx left), for C14 we very certainly are able to check that or whether so far back historically the objects we can date historically have the expected C14 level.
But half life of U isotopes of two U Pb methids are NOT checkable against historically known : The uranium–lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years. (Wiki) Neither is even half of that time.
So, knowing we have the ordinary halflife accurately is one HUGE problem.
A third one is whether decay may have been hastened by radioactive activity close to sample at any point in time. A Roumanian Flood Geologist has suggested there was a chain reaction or a kind of hardmelt inside Earth during Flood. Another possibility is Nuke wars having been possible and acted out in pre-Flood times.
"anything more than that is you trying to satisfy YOUR OWN NEED for gratification..."
Or giving you a chance to think again on what I think you thought through badly.
Your tone is not welcome in debates, it basically means "I am right and you ought to know it" - and it is not a tone I take with you.
"especially when its to some one who agrees with the principal and isnt asking the question"
But I was NOT agreeing with you. I am on the contrary agreeing with the person who asked the first question that there is a problem of knowledge.
- II
- 6:37 Argentinosaurus - as big as we know of?
And it was of the type we have seen described as Behemoth by some creationists?
Well, what did the book of Job say about Behemoth?
- III
- 18:40 Planteating dinosaurs group animals - meat eaters solitaries ...
Recalls Job where a Behemoth is DIFFICULT to tame but Leviathan is IMPoSSIBLE to tame.
[might be in for reconsideration of that one argument]
- IV
- 19:23 "were probably crossing a swollen river, and got drowned trying to cross"
Explanation given here somehow recaptures moods from the Flood of Noah ...
What river EXCEPT THE FLOOD could have done it?
"Ríos más largos de Argentina (más de 200 km)" gives columns:
"Desembocadura - Provincia(s) que atraviesa - Otro(s) país(es)" (Chile, none other relevant for Patagonia)
Relevant provinces : Neuquén, Río Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz, Tierra de Fuego
Río Colorado scores two of these plus a few other ones.
Río Deseado has one plus the delta land Ría Deseada - on 615 km it falls 215 meters.
Río Grande (río de Tierra del Fuego) not stated, Río Gallegos (río) falls 120 m in 300 km ....
Let us compare to 5,210 m fall in 2900 km - Brahmaputra.
Would even a swollen Brahmaputra have buried 35 m long adult behemoths who were anyway half water living, since water supported their body weight?
Apart of course from a Brahmaputra like river passing through what is today Patagonia would need very different shapes of the continents.
Of course, the fiction of "it all happened millions of years ago" would tend to give some supplementary plausibility to that part.
But a river greater than Brahmaputra drowning a herd looks suspiciously like the Flood or a current during the Flood might have been that "river".
- V
- 39:26
Good methodology!
I wonder whether his find will include traces of cannibalistic behaviour, perhaps not (if I am correct, the victims of T Rex cannibalism would probably not be roaming for prey with the rest when the flood struck) ... but I like looking 3 years for an example of other animals on spot which would indicate a predator trap/tar pit.
Either way, if there was T Rex cannibalism, either that or T Rex not being right candidate for Leviathan might explain why Leviathan cannot be tamed.
PLOS ONE : Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex
Nicholas R. Longrich , John R. Horner, Gregory M. Erickson, Philip J. Currie*
Published: October 15, 2010
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013419
Pack hunters that do cannibalism are as untameable as non-pack hunters.
* Nicholas R. Longrich , Affiliation: Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
John R. Horner, Affiliation: Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, United States of America
Gregory M. Erickson, Affiliation: Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America
Philip J. Currie Affiliation: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
