Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material (Third sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

I blocked the lout

So I cannot now go back and look at where he said all I answer, especially I am not finding the link I will refer to in β.

I am here in α concerned with a comment starting "sit bonum, tempora volvunt" which unlike the other things may have a grammatical meaning like "let it be good, times change" or more freely "let it be enough, times change".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

α

Tempora si volvunt, veritas tamen manet.

"So now you are saying your argument was something else?"

Not than what it was, but than what you got it to.

"You are whining about Argon and the lack of constants, what am I missing?"

You must have confused :

1) my "claim" about Argon absorption into sample being a possibility relating to the K-Ar dating
with
2) my "claim" about C14 level in atmosphere having certainly had an initial buildup when it was very far from constant, and that buildup period falling into recent times being a possibility relating to C14 dating
with
3) my "claim" about isotopes with higher half lives than C14 not having the half lives properly measured being another possibility relating to both K-Ar dating and the two U-Pb datings
with
4) my "claim" about some Pb having been there from start in U-Pb and Th-Pb datings being a possibility relating to U-Pb datings and to Th-Pb dating

AND missed that you are the one claiming each of these methods gives fairly reliable results for "older than Biblical creation" dates. I am in each case claiming an alternative possibility for the "age measures". You seem to prefer not getting it right.

"Are you now going back and editing your prior claims? I think you are."

Ah, no. Did I mention a man with your attitude towards God might be a lout towards men too? You are acting it.

"Aetas enim hujus mundi, metus imbecillam, istos. Spera in intellegere facientes magnitudo et tempus agere volentibus investigare et discernere uerum a falso."

Did you get the Latin phrases via Google Translate? They are not correct grammatically.

["since the age of this earth, fear weak [not coordinated], those [not coordinated withb either]" plus "spera in" takes a noun, not an infinitive like "intelligere" ...]

"Maybe these [blip]ers can convince you. Since actual textbooks don't mean anything to you. I don't agree with them either, because Jesus was full of [blip], just like you."

Textbooks mean more than they.

Really. They are really ignoring data when it comes to Bible and tradition, they are what I call Modernists.

"At least these people are talking in your dialect,"

Nope. I am an ex-Evolutionist, but never in my life was Modernist.

"good luck getting through any of the text with your ability to ignore good data."

Ah, thanks for the qualification "good" - you admit I am not ignoring the data you consider bad.

"And I will know if you are a true student of latin or just a Google Translate honk, if you cannot decipher my message."

You like projecting your own faults on others right? What you wrote was not grammatical Latin.

"So will every other catholic school kid."

There is at least one Latinist reading our thread on the blog message, I hope. A real one.

"At first you were marginally entertaining, but now you are the Creation Argument's White Ford Bronco, driving in a low-speed pursuit. Al Cowlings wants to stop and drop you off on the side of the road. You should do yourself a favor and get out of the Bronco."

"Run Juice Run!"

Oh dear ... you can spare yourself trouble by keeping out of this thread yourself. I might even block you.

"Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several million years in age. The naturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception, naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture)."

I was aware of racemic mixtures not being the ones in use in live organisms.

"Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old."

Supposing you know the speed of racemisation.

Which would need you to know how old samples of such and such racemity are, before you can use it to measure age of samples with unknown age.

Again, not at all a circle free method. K-Ar, not circle free, racemicity oh, sorry, racemity dating, not circle free, I think I had another one you had already tried in vain ... ah yes, the "time it takes to make crude oil"-method. Not circle free either.

β

Btw, read the link anyway, found the outreach in bottom portion most annoying while the three answers don't adress the fact CMI gave a new misdating from 1996 lava flow. If pyroxene means solidified lava, one of their answers goes down here, as I mentioned earlier: DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)

Taken from this article:

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

Dr. Steven A. Austin also is a geologist, btw:

CMI : Dr. Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/dr-steven-a-austin

PLUS the problem of very long halflives, measuring those beyond C14:

New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/01/quarterlife-is-bad-term.html

Note:

change of subject. In the following comment.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl sooo your still ignoring that the univers HAS to be 11 billion years old because the radiation from the bing bang is 11 billion light years away??

"Jeez S. Christ"

+auchucknorris Hans is ignoring the solid and incontrovertible work of the whole of the scientific community, mostly because he thinks he is reading and comprehending things like Latin, Chemistry, Biology, Bio-Decomposition, Organic Decay, Radio-Carbon Dating, yet he is not in the least of abilities able to grasp that these stupid theories he espouses have been debunked, destroyed, and laid in the ground so long ago. So long ago in fact, that we have forgotten the arguments, since they are so unnecessary in our time.

He has some idea that because he has personally observed the chemical exchange between Argon and anything Greek with 3 syllables, he may now speak as an expert ombudsman on the realities of physics.

He tried some Anglicized Latin in a silly God-Promoting preface to one of his dumbcunt screeds, I sent him a deeply grammatical challenge in Latin which only someone NOT fluent in Latin would consider gibberish, and he fell into the trap. 7th Grade Catholic School Latin I say (and I'm hardly a master). [That was not a lie.]

If he is that weak in Latin, and that weak in Science, I think he should be perfect as our next President or Speaker of The House.

[I sense I am dealing with a black man who overemphasises status and on top of that overidentifies education, smartness and status. But there is some grasp of realities as to contemporary politics, perhaps.]

auchucknorris
posted at 15:55 (symbolical?)

because then that would mean that EVEN what hes saying now ALSO is inherently incorrect (not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews) but even in his twisted logic it HAS to be incorrect because of just one tiny simple other fact.. could bring up heaps more but like i said the simplest is the best with these people, seeing as they dont even understand what they are talking about.. or they would know what they are saying HAS to be wrong.. so telling them how they are wrong on something as complex as elemental decay, they wont even graps that you've proved them wrong and just frustrate your self... youll have better luck teaching a plant to read

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You mean teach a plant to reed? Would succed with some plants, namely with reeds. Even don't take all that much teaching, right?

"not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews"

How come Brooks (who is a real geologist, on her saying) left the conversation? Maybe she (Brooks is a girls' name, right?) didn't like loosing an argument in science but preferred leaving me to hecklers?

"Jeez S. Christ"
comment landed on : 17:17 (symbolical?)

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Who are you trying to sell these horrible theories too? Only a simpleton would follow you past the first link. I mean, you are even dumber than John Morris Pendleton. Are you Ian Juby?

[I never answered him, but I am not and I respect Ian Juby more than him.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

α

@auchucknorris, light years away, you said? And Big Bang? Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances.

Come back when you have a little info on that, meanwhile, let's take radioactive dating.

A pesky little fact for you: directly measuring a speed is best done while it stays within optimal limits. Precisely as with a curve. Too fast is hard to distinguish from instantaneous, like too curved is hard to optically distinguish from single point. Too slow is hard to distinguish from not moving at all, like too huge a radius is hard to distinguish from straight line. You see someone walking or running, you can "measure" the speed directly. But a bullet is too fast and the sun is too slow. For a bullet, you have to use a long distance so the path takes a second or two. For the sun you have to compare to objects that are really still (like horizon) - by looking at it again.

So, how does this apply to half lives with samples observed decaying in a lab?

Wiki : list of radioactive isotopes by half-life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_isotopes_by_half-life

Take 10³ seconds:

isotope/days/10^3 seconds
iodine-131/8.02/693 (8 days, 0 hours, 28 minutes, 48 seconds)
thulium-167/9.25/799 (9 days, 6 hours)

No competent lab assistant could possibly give thulium 167 same half life as iodine 131! A small sample that can be weighed, a scale with a fine trigger for when weight falls below a certain amount, another scale which is ordinary and untriggered but also fine tuned so you can measure up the exact double weight, a timer ... you can't miss it.

When it comes to H-7 or He-5, I am pretty sure they don't use that method.

half-life 1⁻²⁴ seconds : 23 of them for H-7 and 760 of them for He-5.

Having any doubts about that one?

Now, lets go a bit higher up in half lives ... 10⁹ seconds ...

isotope/years/10⁹ seconds
americium-241/432.2/13.64 (432 years, 2 months, 12 days)

If you want to use sketched out method to be so exact, well, I suppose you may have started looking when Americium-241 was discovered and come back 432 years later ... only, it is NOT yet 432 years since Americium was discovered. But maybe you can count speed of the Geiger-meter ticking - comparing it with what you have otherwise. The half life measure is indirect again. But not impossible.

[By the way, if it were wrong, we would not be dating anything wrong, the isotope is used in smoke detectors, not in dating methods.]

Now, look at this:

isotope/years/10⁹ seconds
carbon-14/5,730/181
americium-243/7,370/233

I would not bet speed of Geiger-meter ticking would be so very different for these two that you can really measure even that.

Now, for C-14 I proposed a little trick somewhere (I'll know if you looked it up or not when I consult the comments previous to last, since I did not read all before an internet session stopped and now is another one ...)

Take an organic object 5,730 years old, you must be sure of the date (with a hundred years or so - I have also seen 5,690 mentioned, if I recall correctly). If the object shows half the C14 level of today's atmosphere, this means half life and C14 level back then are correct. That is 3,715 BC ... what exact objects do you have that are undisputedly dated (independently of C14 of course) to that date? None. But, we can take half of half life too. 2,865 BP = 850 B. C. - Lifetime of Homer? But we have perhaps not identified Homer's grave? If we can get one object, or the more the better, undisputedly dated to exactly that date, we can test C14 from there. Half a half life means it should have about 71% left.

Or if objects from back then that are really well dated historically are too scarce, a quarter of a half life. If C14 level was correct and half life is correct, an object from back then should have 84% of the C14 level. 1432 years and 6 months ago = 582 years and six months A. D. Or 580 - 585 A.D. Now there is no problem.

With enough measures, we can get a timeline back in history (recorded such) for the last two thousand years of C14 level reasonably stable and C14 half life known.

Further back [with C-14, that is] the problem is not the half life, but if we are or are not past the initial build up.

The ones just past C-14 are: plutonium-240 - 6,563 years to plutonium-239 - 24,110 years, reaching past : thorium-229, americium-243, curium-245, curium-250, tin-126, niobium-94.

I suppose one of these came into an artefact and that was dated by C14 for other parts and ... no? Not that many ancient Egyptian artefacts with americium or thorium? One might have hope for tin-126 - supposing there was no other tin in it to start with?

Are you starting to sense a kind of problem?

We have hardly used anything of this to calibrate past historic objects dated with C14. And if you try to top with prehistoric objects dated with C14, that gives way at the point where safe historic datings cannot be made with records, due to initial buildup problem for C14.

"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."

"As time passes after the formation of such a material, uranium-234 in the sample, with a half-life of 245,000 years, decays to thorium-230. Thorium-230 is itself radioactive with a half-life of 75,000 years, so instead of accumulating indefinitely (as for instance is the case for the uranium-lead system), thorium-230 instead approaches secular equilibrium with its radioactive parent uranium-234. At secular equilibrium, the number of thorium-230 decays per year within a sample is equal to the number of thorium-230 produced, which also equals the number of uranium-234 decays per year in the same sample."

With these kinds of half lives, it is purely ridiculous to say we have even indirectly observed even a quarter or an eighth of a half life. I e, the half life cannot be said to be safely measured, and I do not mean it could be a few days off.

Now, what about K-Ar dating?

isotope/10⁹ years/10¹⁵ seconds
potassium-40/1.277/40.3

1,277,000,000 years ... oh yeah, right, we must have been able to measure that accurately! Not.

β

Then someone is relying on no Latinist (or no honest one) reading this thread. Guess who?

γ

By now, that guy has shown as total a disregard for argument as for the honour of God or of adversaries in the debate.

I blocked him after his last comment.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl who me? for asking a simple question that doesnt agree with your WRONG stance on the age of the earth? how is light from 11 billion light years away (that came from and proves of the big bang theory. a;lso proving you wrong just because this light is from the one thing your saying didnt happen, because god did it ten thousand years ago) not proof that things existed up to 11 billion years ago and 10,000 years is not even close to the creation of existence.. even like the closest starts light is older than that

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, +auchucknorris, the other guy. "Jeez ..." sth. To you I had previously given a much longer response. How about clicking in order to see previous comments on thread and not just watch the last one? The one for you was before the one for him. As to you, I tried to keep the discussion on the radioactive methods you have as yet not defended BEFORE we get into x billion light years away, which yu haven't substantiated either (you have of course said they are x billion ligght years away, usual number I keep seeing is not 11 but 13.5, big deal and it would follow light shone from them x billion light years ago, but you have still not substantiated claim) since you have not shown that the light sources in question are that far off. If you give up on radiometric dating, you can of course change subject to defending that.

Btw, closest stars, as astronomers count according to a system you have not proven so far, would be about 4 light years away. Not beyond 10,000.

[Linked here to show him how comments are really sorted.]

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol because this was your response

" light years away, you said? And Big Bang? Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"

lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance your a moron, and its not being sold as fact, it is fact.. beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we dont ask "what does hans think about this thing thats backed up by irrefutable proof" "nah sorry it doesnt agree with his beliefs so hes still got his head in the sand so sorry cant be a fact yet" even tho that reality would be verry convenient for u lol and how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!! its not debatable!! not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings, so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years, and considering how many galixies there are with the un-fathomable amount of stars in each, to even suggest geometry is wrong and ALLLL those different galaxies are within 10,000 light years is laughable, even if the stars were squeezed together as tight as you could pack em its not even in the same ball park, you just HUGELY underestimate the size and scale of the universe, in every direction in every space of sky the universe is completely blanketed in galaxies, you look at the tiniest pin point your probs looking at more galaxies than you could imagine, each one of them in its self is 100,000's of light years across, and each one of them is so far away form the next even the closest are invisible to the human eye due to redshift, it is UNDENIABLE they are greater than 10,000 light years away,

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I take it you have tacitly given up on radiometric dating, then, since you don't mention it.

"lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance" - if I hadn't known that, how come I used (and you even quoted) "There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"

Let's see if you are at least trying to be informative ...

"beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we" - this was not informative, it was just misidentifying your set with "the human race" as if I were an elf or dawrf or hobbit or sth.

"how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!!" - last time I checked, red shift was foremost concerned with speed of expansion, and that only if attributin it to Doppler effect. How do you get a distance measure from that?

"not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings" - how about being more precise, let's take triangulation ... how many angles and distances have we got on different world views, and how many do we need to make a distance measure?

"so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong" - oh dear, it seems you confused red shift with the parallax claim ... I am not claiming geoemtry is wrong, I am again asking (has nothing to do with red shift so far): how many sides and angles do we have on different world views and how many do we need? You DO remember high school geometry enough for that, don't you?

Here, let me refresh your memory of good old Soh-Cah-Toa a bit:

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/trigonometry-principles-astronomic.html

"unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years"

Oh, sure. To get 4 light years (supposing we do get them) the parallax angle (suppose the angle is parallactic and no proper movement) is 0.75 arc seconds.

Let me spell it out for you. If you have two cities on opposite sides of the equator, the vertical line in each of them will be 180° to the vertical in the other (i e the up of one will be the down of the other and vice versa). Add another city on the equator - equidistant from the two - and the angle between its verticals and either of the other will be 90°.

Those distances are really far.

Now exactly what kind of distance on earth do you need so that verticals in each place will be at 1 arc second (more than the largest parallax angle)? It is about 30 meters. That is how small the angle is. For 10,000 light years, the angle is very much smaller even than that.

Now, guess what? So small angles are not very easy to measure.

Perhaps you'll say I am making shit up ... no, wait a second.

360° = all equator around full circle = 6378.1 km (equatorial radius)*2*pi = 40,074,784 m


1° = 40,074,784 : 360 = 111,318 m
1 arc minute = 111,318 : 60 = 1,855 m
1 arc second = 1,855 : 60 = 30.92 m.

Two verticals are 30.92 m distant on Earth's surface and meet (as all verticals do) in Earth's centre. That is a very skinny angle. Not easy to measure at all.

If you doubt that, it is you who are saying geometry is wrong, not I.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl 1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery, if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you.

also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way. it didnt take 10 days to make an earth a sun and some start, no it took litterally no time (because it created time as well in that instant) at all to spew forth the seeds for the entire universe and all its 100 BILLION galaxies each with 400 billion stars, and not just one planet with life but who even knows how many planets out there have life, more than you can image, each of them so far away from one another in both space and that will exist in different time periods separated by billions of years the real universe and REAL existence shits on your book, which is almost a spit in the face of any REAL creator, assuming it cares or even can care because its existence is so far away from our understanding of existence, saying it has emotions and human related existences filled with wants and cares doesn't even make sense once you get out of the 3rd dimension, were there isnt a future to want something in because time is a space like up down left and right, not how we perceive it from our 3 dimensional cage on the thin slice of wave we ride through it.

considering how long life takes to form and and planets start to cool for the seeds of single cellular life and our suns age from the beginning of the universe even tho there are potentially life forms billions of years more advanced than us, we are VERY well placed to be one of the most dominant and long lasting existences in universe, its still VERY early on, in the universes story, and as long as we dont kill each other theres a very good chance we can at least survive anything thing the universe throws at us (if not have the abilities to completely protect our selves by the time any thing catastrophic comes for us, you should be proud to be apart of it and the discoveries that can never be made again that are being made right now, its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth"

Studiously missing a point, aren't you?

I gave an idea of how narrow the angle is and youo try to ignore it and pretend I misunderstood.

"we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun"

Supposing that is how it works.

What is YOUR proof for Heliocentrism?

"and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery"

Sorry, but either the machinery works like a protractor in principle, then the angles for "4 to 10 light years" are very narrow and the angles for billions of light years impossibly narrow even for the machinery - OR it works by comparing the things, and then it is assumed most stars show no parallax and if they really do all parallax values are in trouble. Have you heard of 63 Ophiuchi? Well, you should take a look.

"if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you."

I do not think everyone is against me, but those who think they know "more than I" (really know I am wrong, which is another thing) and do not have the patience to get to grips with scientific and philosophical problems, which obviously includes you, those ARE against my honour, independence, dignity in discussion and a few more.

Ditch it, jerk!

"also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way."

Did I tell you I was interested in your take on un-Christian spirituality?

No. Ditch it.

"its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other"

Did I tell you I was interested in your take on Apocalyptics?

No. Ditch it.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence, sorry mate saying "it cant be possible because i say so" isnt a valid argument, try again kid, offer proof it cant be done, you give me nothing to argue besides that your just making shit up and its laughable at this point.. because the answer is yes.. yes they can messure these tiny degrees, technically its a protractor.. that measures fractions of a degree... thats how it passed peer review.. thats why no one who actually knows what they are talking about would even bother arguing, your ignorance isnt proof of any thing other than your ignorance on the topic of which you speak my friend so either offer proof or kindly shut up

ManDeeDooPwee

It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition. Through the movement of the tectonic plates, those layers get pushed up and around. Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

α

"Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas."

Thank you!

What do you think of my analysis here:

Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html

β

"you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence"

You couldn't hit evidence as big as a barn if you had three feet to aim from.

I gave you mathematical evidence, you didn't want it. Shove off.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl lol no you gave me wrong fault math assuming we can only use refrence points of 30 meters away.. when thats not even close or related to how we measure it so its VOID moron because its made up 

[For those not quite following the argument with the full attention participants are assumed to have, I did not say our reference points are 30 meters from each other for α Centauri, I am quite aware Heliocentrics consider we have an Astronomic Unit apart from Earth position A to Earth position B : my point is, angle we are supposed to be measuring at α Centauri between two positions of Earth rather than at Earth between two positions of α Centauri is not greater than the angle at centre of Earth to two point on surface 30 meters apart. Which is a very slender angle, a very slender triangle, even with the supposed base of 2 AU. 2, not just one btw. But on top of confusing that issue, he never even tried to uphold Heliocentric interpretation of phenomena as the one corresponding to reality and "on" which one "can count." Didn't he comprehend I was challenging it?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

sic scripsit (I am blocking the guy)

[did, can't access the thread, waiting for answer if any from ManDeeDooPwee]

MOUNTAINOUS

carbon dating i would assume. not sure.

[Like ManDeeDooPwee above this is in answer to original question by Belegur Mastema : How do they know the deepness of the ground determines the age the fossil comes from?]

omitting (for now)

two guys who were basically quarrelling (might get in later if anyone answers them and I answer that). 

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+MOUNTAINOUS "carbon dating i would assume. not sure. "

You assume wrong.

+ManDeeDooPwee explained the reasoning very well:

"It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition."

The problem with this is : how does she know the types of rock are millions of years apart ratehr than coming from one and same flood?

The fact is, when a fossil is dated as Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous (including carbon) carbon dating is routinely not used. When it is used, you get other dates than those assumed for Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous.

Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (second sequel)

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

Before I looked

at the following comment from the man whose profile name reads blasphemously "Jeez S. Christ", I answered an older comment by a more honest person, as you will see, after this comment, when mine starts in a reply not yet concerning the foul probable Communist or Freemason.

"Jeez S. Christ"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl It's amazing how you produce very easily debunked claims and act as though you are standing on a rock solid argument. The degree to which you have convinced yourself is dangerously insane. Where are these books you read? Where are the laboratories that conclude this work you are doing is correct?

Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact.

The Russian petroleum research is highly questionable and has no real basis in fact. There is no independent support for the statement that there is "new oil" or "young oil". My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT. Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?

Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000.

Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact.

If your Creation occurred less than 10,000 years ago, there would only be a few hundred million people alive right now. Especially if all but 8 were wiped out in between that time and now.

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Basically the crux of my argument, is that you are:

• A) insane
• B) cannot properly read books
• C) extremely disloyal to truth
• D) possibly the most motivated troll on Earth.

Hans Georg Lundahl

+Belegur Mastema -
"If they can date volcanic eruptions thanks to the radioactive decay, you can assume the organisms caught in the lava are of the same age."

The problem is, they can't.

Have you heard of Mount St Helen's recent eruption and its vast misdating?

Wiki : Mount St. Helens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens

Wiki : 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helen's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_eruption_of_Mount_St._Helens

Hmm, for some reason the article on the eruption has no reference to the dating. Same goes for the article on the volcano itself.

Here I do find an article by Creationists. Do you think the source is biassed? Here it is anyway:

CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
http://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

They give a list of K-Ar datings (Potassium-Argon datings), measured in Ma (Megaannum or millions of years, I presume).

• DOME-1 ‘whole rock’0.35 ± 0.05 (300,000 - 400,000 years old)
• DOME-1 feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06 (280,000 - 400,000 years old)
• DOME-1M amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2 (700,000 - 1,100,000 years old)
• DOME-1H pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3 (1,400,000 - 2,000,000 years old)
• DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old) (just an extract of a more complex table they gave, plus an understandable translation of the Ma values).

They also make this claim about the table: Potassium-argon data from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens Volcano.

So, suppose they are a biassed source, suppose they are making very wild claims, how come wiki isn't listing any reference to some link refuting these claims? Sth like a "non-biassed" (i e evolutionist) source?

Even more, the CMI link is referencing what the guys dating the lava (or defending the method in general) said: "Dalrymple22 recognized that these anomalous ‘ages’ could be caused by ‘excess radiogenic 40Ar’ from natural contamination, or caused by isotopic fractionation of argon. Krummenacher23 offered similar explanations for unexpected argon isotope ratios from several modern lava flows."

So, why not go to note 22 for Dalrymple: 22.Dalrymple, Ref. 21. [which reads] 21.Dalrymple, G.B., 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6:47–55, 1969.

And Krummenacher in note 23: 23.Krummenacher, D., Isotopic composition of argon in modern surface volcanic rocks, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 8:109–117, 1970.

Of course, the references are from 1969 and 1970 ... science could have progressed since then and Steven A. Austin might be flogging a dead horse instead of fighting a live bull ... but shouldn't wikipedia have given some link to a refutation, if that were the case?

Wait, there is also a thing like TalkOrigins - maybe they have a thing?

Sure:

Claim CD013.1: Index to Creationist Claims,
edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2007
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

Let's pardon them for only citing Austin and Swenson and not Dalrymple and Krumenacher (or was the CMI article talking of Austin and Swenson measures? Check, I am a bit tired today!) BUT what they give is not all that bad even so:

"Response:

• "1. Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
  
  
• "2. Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless."

Now, what do I respond to that?

• 2. is a problem that CAN be fixed. But was it fixed already when certain dates like at Laetoli were measured? Or has it been fixed only after Mount St Helens without adequate redating of already measured "dates"? And are xenocrysts all that neat to distinguish thousands of years after the eruption?
  
  
• 1. is a problem which CANNOT be fixed unless you prove the Earth very old and the samples under consideration therefore NON-recent. On YEC view, a date 2 million years ago never existed in time. Therefore, K-Ar just MIGHT have a use as dating items once the general old earth paradigm is taken for granted ... wait a second. You can know a sample is recent if you were around. But if you were not, how can you know whether it is within or beyond the 2,000,000 year limit?
  
  Even more : one date is beyond the 2,000,000 year limit, but watch the margin of error: 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)

Now for the lout*:

"Show me one accredited scientist that backs up anything you are touting as fact."

CMI : Dr. Tasman Bruce Walker
http://creation.com/dr-tasman-bruce-walker

* If you like some politeness from me, change the screenname, for one. Earlier comments will change name automatically if you change screen name and retain channel. Btw, I am not sure I haven't met you somewhere before.

"Jeez S. Christ"

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Wow, that video of that guy making shit up and bloviating on Biblical Worldview has totally returned me to Christ. Not.

He is not espousing anything that deposes Evolution, he is merely asking us to consider the Biblical Worldview. ALL of his evidence is undermined by itself, much like every rampant claim you further wish to endorse in regards to Creation. I'll be here all week, dumb [blip].

For the record, the man is not serving his degrees very well, nor is he seconded by independent critique. His degrees are solid, Univ of Queensland is a decent enough school, please explain to him that he is also wrong about Biblical Creation. Thank you again dumb [blip].

Next?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah you are an apostate. How sad.

I'm not crying over you. Answering you may help someone else.

"My statement about petroleum should end your whole Young Earth Wet Dream, it should easily dismantle, by use of the properties of BASIC HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL CHEMISTRY that the materials involved in producing petroleum products are in fact BEYOND ANCIENT."

According to the theory commonly given. I gave a real geologist a chance to reply to my criticism, she has so far not taken it. I nearly thought she was getting tired of you, but then she seemed more OK with you than with me even. So, no. Now, Lascaux and Altamira and so on ...

"Why are there no cave paintings of Dinosaurs? Cave paintings in Lascaux have been effortlessly dated to be in existence for at least 20,000 years (and I am being kind, they are much older than that). Where were the Dinosaurs?"

• 1) tas walker would not just agree, but has in fact agreed very explicitly that Carbon 14 datings are for one not entirely worthless but for another as commonly given, beyond a certain time back in need of reinterpretation - which is explained by lower C14 back then.
  
  You do not have a continual presence of human population in Altamira or Lascaux which have kept continual written records back to 20,000 years ago, therefore we cannot check the calibration for C14 dates that old against historic dating of objects.
  
  Now, half an halflife of C14 is another matter, it's about the time of Cyrus or Sennacherib or sth (not quite sure on exact half life) and you can check against objects from their days if C14 back then was close or spot on what it is today. You can't do that for Lascaux or Altamira.
  
  
• 2) THEN Lascaux and Altamira having this possibility of being much younger than 20,000 years (though obviously older than 2,000 years, which do give another carbon date and wich is indeed checkable), may in fact be post-Flood. Which is what the Creation Science community thinks by and large.
  
  
• 3) Most dinosaurs are however from before the Flood. OK, the Behemoth type has been sited after the Flood too, but one of the sitings was in Africa.
  
  So, possibly the guys painting at Lascaux had the luck not to meet a dino. Then again, they possibly had the bad luck to meet a dino after painting there and then they painted there no more.

"Just for laughs, what do you believe the World population was in 46 b.c.? By your claims and explanations, it would have been no more than 3,000,000."

Where exactly did I personally state anything implying that?

Where, for that matter, did any other creationist (like not a hack, but someone knowing some creation science and some science in general) ever give such a claim? Or even a hack for that matter?

Or wait, may I make a little guess about your method? Or two?

• A
  • 1) You look at increase rate right now.
  • 2) You look at how long ago Noah and his three sons lived, and all of the three had wives.
  • 3) You calculate how many according to that rate should have been alive in 46 BC.
• B
  • 1) You look at number of people now and number of people in the days after Ark stranded on Ararat. And at time between then and now.
  • 2) You calculate increase rate from that.
  • 3) You draw out a graph like a linear or geometric function and see how many there should have been in 46 BC.

BOTH methods are flawed.

Human increase goes way faster when men are few but with knowhow and space is for free, than later when they are crowded. So, human increase is NOT a simple function invariable over time.

"Syria alone had over 3,000,000 people in 46 b.c. (Roman Census) and this is a solid fact."

I do not believe you that Syria had 3,000,000 people then, nor totally disbelieve it. It has more now, I think, and agricultural productivity has not gone up so drastically that 3,000,000 would certainly have been beyond the then capacity.

But when you speak of Roman Census for 46 BC, I'd like to know where you get that from.

Like, not just what modern scholar, but also what ancient writers citing the census result (or what archaeological digs). PLUS, if the number is based straight on number given in census or on some kind of calculus how many there would have been in a medium household or sth. You see, before 1800 direct individual counting statistics for populations are usually NOT available. That is a solid fact.

"Jeez S. Christ"

That's precisely why I keeping reeling you in, you make more claims and bury your argument deeper. In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce.

Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument. Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available. It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient.

To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude? I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum.

I do believe you are crying, btw. 

Mike Hardman

I don't think i understand the question.



Hans-Georg Lundahl

α

I'll repeat and restate: Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim?

If dinos were and men were not around and petrol comes from animal remains, driving cars is burning coal atoms etc. that once were in dino bodies. But since men were around in the days of Noah, are you worried driving cars or using plastic might be a kind of cannibalism? Perhaps I should be worried too.

β

Praise be to Jesus Christ - the lout who is abusing His holy Name has made himself ridiculous again.

"In the future, people will be reading your words and wondering how the fuck we ever let you attempt to reproduce."

Ah, that is admitting there is some consistency between Atheism and the ideologies of sterilisation or such? After all, you are voicing both.

"Do us all a favor and yell louder, bring more "facts" to this argument."

Wasn't yelling, and am satisfied with the facts I brought to question until NEXT argument I counter.

"I do believe you are crying, btw."

You are lying - or dreaming. Now, for the argument you gave, you gave the fact I needed:

"Argon dissipation, or Gas transmissions need not be consistent, we are not trying to age them using the standard of Physics, we are aging them by the best possible long-age comparison model available."

Ah, best possible long age model available?

I'll take that as an admission of two things:

• a) you really do not know
• b) you would reasonably know (perhaps in some places at least) if long age model were previously proven.

Thank you, but that makes it circular to use K-Ar as a proof of the long age model!

"It doesn't have to pinpoint the week or minute, it is good enough to get within several thousand years, being that we are so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient."

When it came to a lava flow in 1996 (not identic to the one dated by two creationists), the method missed by two million years. That is not "within several thousand years".

Also, you argue FROM us being being "so far removed from the time when most of today's fossils were ambient." Again, circular.

"To clarify, you did say that Petroleum takes less than 40,000 years to develop into crude?"

Petroleum does not develop into crude oil, it is crude oil.

And yes, I said it.

"I just want a nice peg to hang my victory on, and you admitting that idiotic tidbit will clarify my victory to all who can read and chew gum."

What victory? You are going circular again. "we know it takes at least 40,000 years for crude oil to form because no crude oil is younger, and we know no crude oil is younger because it takes 40,00 year to form" or sth?

So, if you want to back up the "crude oil is all 40,000 years whereever we find it" you had better back up this independently of dating crude oil by the time it takes to form.

But that means dismissing the crude oil argument as much as you need also to dismiss the K-Ar argument. How many do you have left?

Btw, I'll resent if you try to get back to using either of these two as a back up argument for the next one that fails you!

"Jeez S. Christ"

[Blip] your claims, you are making shit up at this point. Everyone reading your thread will know that. You act as if you are the lone scientist on board, you're not. Like I said, keep shouting this bullshit, it is getting funnier.

I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not.

I am asserting that the dissipation factors you are calling to my attention will not change the scope of our current dating system by more than 5-7% which is just fine for the dating being attempted. In other words, if we are wrong about the specific period of dating in question, it is by far less than you assert that it would be. You are trying to convert Millions of years into a neat little 10,000 year package. it won't fit but please keep up with this bullshit you are slinging.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I made nothing up, and it is sad for you that you cannot see the difference between factual claim and logical argument about the ones you make. I am NOT acting as if I were the lone scientist on earth and have never done so - but you are acting as if a certain collective of them (admittedly in majority today) were the lone, not just scientists but even thinkers on earth and that everyone who is not on their line should let their set think for themselves. I refuse to coddle your collective megalomania, that is all.

"I do have a complete understanding of Argon dissipation, I know enough to understand that you are misinformed about its properties. I know that you are trying to sound smart, you're not."

If you did, why were you not answering my points instead of your diatribe?

"Jeez S. Christ"

No, I am not trying to convince you because if you can read the proper textbooks and still arrive at your conclusions, you are either insane or talking for our entertainment. Believe me, nobody is gaining a further knowledge of science from your entries. Nobody is changing their views due to your ridiculous assertions. If any of the things you are saying amount to claiming an Earth Age of less than 10,000 years, then you are obviously too insane to persuade. I wouldn't want you on my side, being insane like you are.

Discussing the depths of chemical reaction, chemical functions, and combined elemental materials with a person like you would not serve to improve upon what we understand. You are merely here for an entertainment for me.

I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered. You are claiming that because chemical transitions might be dissimilar, that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one, which it is not, your calculations would not be off more than FIVE TO SEVEN PERCENT> Please do a math problem for me and subtract 10,000 from 13.65 Billion. Now, divide that amount by 13.65 Billion. That is the percentage by which you are incorrect. Get a little closer to the bulls-eye if you want to be taken seriously. Have I reminded you of what a dumb cunt you are acting like? You are, you are being a dumb cunt who is off by more than 13.659999999991 BILLION years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Gloria +Patri+et Filii+et Spiritui Sancto!

Quisnam latine conscius iam audivit phrasim "iurare in verba magistri"?

"I believe your argument is that Argon does not behave EXACTLY the same way that it might have during the period from which fossils and artifacts were recovered."

No, you pretend to believe that because you are afraid to deal with the argument I really made.

"Even if the Argon dissipation argument were a sound one"

Where exactly did I or the CMI article I cited or even the Mark Isaac pseudo refutation of the argument mention "dissipation"? More like absorption if you look. More you have argon, more potassium is supposed to have decayed into it. Absorb argon from air (other components of air not being measured or perhaps even reacting to form other molucules that can't be measured) and the "measure" is biassed to the older.

Plus, you cannot check the decay rate at any important portion of process (like a full half life, like a half half life etc down to a minimum sixteenth even) against historically known material. Not even sure K-Ar dates were made for Vesuvius.

... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material

1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four

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