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

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

Brooks Anderson

Carbon 14 dating is not used AT ALL for dating Cretaceous, Permian or Carboniferous rocks because they are tens to hundreds of millions of years old.(there are other ways) Carbon 14 dating is only good to about 50,000 years before present. I' ve had relatively recent (~37,000 to 43,000 radiocarbon years) bp coral reef rocks from Guam start giving conflicting dates because the remaining radioactivity was so slight. Any educated geologist knows not to waste money dating those older rocks with C14. I,m afraid that you have exposed your lack of knowledge about the subject by your self-assured statements. (old geologist)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Carbon 14 is not used to date non-organic rocks per se. (Coral reefs are obviously not non-organic).

It is used routinely to date bones or fossils found in the rocks. Except when rocks are considered too old for a Carbon 14 date to be worthwhile.

However, creationists have taken samples from at least Cretaceous dino fossils and from probably Carboniferous or perhaps Silurian carbon deposits, as well as from petrol. And sent in to labs doing C-14 tests, without telling them what it is about. The THEN answers are usually, according to their claims, 20 - 50,000 years B. P. Dates which we can reinterpret as "from time of Flood" by assuming that by then the Carbon 14 level was not yet near the modern one, but vastly lower in an initial buildup stage.

That is what I am talking about here.

Brooks Anderson

O.K. I must admit that I've never heard of such a nutty use ofn C14 dating.

[Oh, btw, though I didn't notice then, this statement makes who exactly "selfassured"?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In that case, it might be an idea to give you some material about it.

Enjoy the read, and do feel free to comment:

CMI : Radiocarbon in dino bones
International conference result censored
by Carl Wieland
Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/c14-dinos

Brooks Anderson

Thank you for the offer, However, I long ago decided that there is no point in arguing with creationists, They believe in magic and evidence-based "proofs" carry no weight with them. I morn for the "dumbing-down" of my USA by our corporate-bought politicians and the simple-minded creationists.Good luck in your efforts.

Mike Hardman
[I link to what his name icon says, but get a 404]

+Edmond Dantez Who calibrates this data? what if those millions of year are actually months? How would they know? have any of them sat and watched this carbon dissipate for 1 million years in order to determine that it actually requires said amount of time as calibrated to conjecture the time required ? who has physically observed this?

+Hans-Georg Lundahl and being from time of flood, it makes since given that is what is required to create a fossil, i have yet to hear of a fossil found that wasn't buried in sediment , they always say, either buried by a flood/sand storm,.. other wise it wouldn't become a fossil, it would rot, lol

+Brooks Anderson Why do you deny Gods existence? You chose to believe a formula based on conjecture over the all mighty Creator? There is so much proof dinosaurs and man coexisted known today that has been suppressed for 2000 years coming out in the open and so many discoveries of proof of global flooding and catastrophes as described in the text world wide by so many different people who have never met, how can anyone this day and age still buy that Darwinism gobble?? The dirt/rocks/water that is here is the same age 3000 feet bellow as it is right under your feet. its 1 rock, Earth. how can you even think that dirt 5 feet below is older than dirt on top? its all from 1 thing, it cant age differently,... is your arm older than your leg? 

[If dirt was deposited and wasn't there from creation, dirt on top of hard rock layers are obviously at least somewhat older than dirt at the bottom. But whether its five minutes older or five million years older is of course quite enother question.]

Edmond Dantez
[linking for source, but you don't need to go there.]

+Mike Hardman "Who" calibrates this data is thoroughly irrelevant. Physics makes it possible to accurately determine the decay rate of isotopes.

[Whether or not he is right, after this he has no right to tell anyone "who are you to" - because logic, available to all men, makes it possible to evaluate logic plausibility of his claim.]

If this method were not accurate, every nuclear reactor on the planet either would produce no power or would long since have blown up.

In addition, they are calibrated against multiple objects of known age when possible (as is the case with radiocarbon dating) and then against other methods known to be reliable. Only when all these methods agree are they then considered reliable. It is also important that samples are chosen appropriately and methodologies are consistent.

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez hahahaha,.. what a load of horse shit.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman "A formula based on conjecture"??? WTF are you talking about?

What "all mighty creator"? Never seen one of those or any evidence for one, sorry.

"So much proof dinosaurs and man coexisted"? None. Zero. The only evidence I've ever seen presented was completely without merit, total conjecture or outright fraud.

"Proof of global flooding"? Again, None. Zero.

DNA is the nail in the coffin of any denial of evolution. Just as it can establish with virtual certainty good enough for a court of law, the paternity or familial relationships between individuals, so by the same evidence and methodology, it can establish familial relationships between species. Evolution is a undeniable FACT.

Brooks Anderson

Mike: You clearly are a troll. If not, please change your citizenship. You are confirming people's notions that the USA''s educational system is that of a "third world" country.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman Wait, you ask a question to which I present a clear and documentable answer and then out of nowhere, just call my answer "horseshit"? Do you have any evidence? Would you like to present an argument or just continue to look like an abusive idiot?

[A thing you should keep in mind he said to Mike when you read what he'll be saying to me.]

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez you present nothing but more conjectures. some guy in the field of science makes a claim based on no observational proof is in fact horse shit. you gave no answer, you avoided the question. and that is your perspective. I am no more an abusive idiot than you are at this point.

Mike Hardman

+Brooks Anderson Clearly you can't answer anything with out conjectures or insults.

[And remember, Brooks Anderson is the Geologist!]

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman Do you understand that if what we know about radioactivity and isotopes was incorrect, that nuclear reactors wouldn't work or would blow up? Do you know anything about what radioactivity even is?

Mike Hardman

+Edmond Dantez shush troll.

Edmond Dantez

+Mike Hardman This is not conjecture. This is fact, which can be documented by even a cursory investigation of science at a high school level.

[The more cursory and the more limited to high school level, the better he might like it, even?]

+Mike Hardman Even just the Wikipedia article on the subject and the peer reviewed articles you could find in the citations would demonstrate that your objections are nonsense.

+Mike Hardman Take your own advice. You're the troll.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Brooks:

"However, I long ago decided that there is no point in arguing with creationists"

What do you think you are doing on this thread? There is more than one creationist here!

One thing is certain, with your attitude you are basically, as far as you can, guaranteeing yourself not to find out if you were wrong and we right.

"They believe in magic and evidence-based "proofs" carry no weight with them."

You mean we believe in the miraculous - provided there is a God in with the explanation to make the miracles - and atheist methodology carries no weight with us. As is indeed the case.

"I morn for the "dumbing-down" of my USA by our corporate-bought politicians and the simple-minded creationists."

Without corporate bought politicians, there might not have been all that much Darwinism in the first place. At least not via public school system.

@Mike:

"i have yet to hear of a fossil found that wasn't buried in sediment , they always say, either buried by a flood/sand storm,.. other wise it wouldn't become a fossil, it would rot, lol"

Good point. If not positively proving the one great flood at least perfectly compatible with it. But earlier here on the video, we saw what I would even consider proof : a river flooding so high that it drowns fording sauropods and that in Patagonia - I don't think the steepest river flows today (like Brahmaputra) could have done it with so large animals.

@Edmond Dantez

"Physics makes it possible to accurately determine the decay rate of isotopes."

Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem.

"If this method were not accurate, every nuclear reactor on the planet either would produce no power or would long since have blown up."

The decay rates in the nuclear plants are hastened very much compared to the usual half lives, so you have no good point there.

"In addition, they are calibrated against multiple objects of known age when possible (as is the case with radiocarbon dating) and then against other methods known to be reliable."

With radiocarbon and historically dated objects - no problem.

But when you get to K-Ar or U-Pb or Th-Pb the undisputed history is so short that it gives no foothold for a calibration. When you calibrate those, you calibrate against objects whose age is "known" through:

* other similar method * radiocarbon carried past the historic calibration on contested supposition the initial build-up was so far back it is irrelevant * or biostratigraphy.

In other words, with these longer methods you calibrate against "known" ages that aren't really known.

And if you want to suggest that the exact speed of decay can be accurately measured, think again.

Radiocarbon isn't used for ages further back than 40,000 years ago, because, they say, carried back beyond that the margin or error becomes too great.

In other words, for measuring the decay rate of K-40 or of U whichever of the two isotopes they use, the margin of error may also be too great to get any useful result.

"Only when all these methods agree are they then considered reliable. It is also important that samples are chosen appropriately and methodologies are consistent."

And when some methods disagree vastly with the rest, they are considered unreliable and discarded as irrelevant. But the number of discarded datings might be relevant for reliability of methods.

@Brooks again:

"Mike: You clearly are a troll. If not, please change your citizenship. You are confirming people's notions that the USA''s educational system is that of ab "third world" country."

In other words, you are measuring excellence of US educational system by its agreement with a Communist standard of progress.

How unpleasant for people not sharing it to live beside you, if they do!

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl "Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem." ... NO DUMB-ASS! U235 HAS A HALF LIFE OF 700 MILLION YEARS AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE OF PHYSICS! IF WE HADN'T ALREADY KNOWN THIS WHEN WE STARTED BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEY EITHER WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED OR WE'D HAVE BLOW OURSELVES UP! YOU'RE A [blip]ING IDIOT!

"The decay rates in the nuclear plants are hastened very much compared to the usual half lives, so you have no good point there." ,,, OF COURSE I DO AND YOU JUST MADE IT FOR ME! IF WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS WE WOULD LONG SINCE HAVE BLOWN OURSELVES UP, YOU [blip]ING MORON!

"And if you want to suggest that the exact speed of decay can be accurately measured, think again." ... NO, I WON'T "THINK AGAIN" AND I'M NOT "SUGGESTING" IT I'M SAYING IT OUTRIGHT AND HAVE ALSO PROVEN IT.

"And when some methods disagree vastly with the rest, they are considered unreliable and discarded as irrelevant. But the number of discarded datings might be relevant for reliability of methods.!" ... EXAMPLES? OF COURSE NOT!

[And he got upset over Mike calling a reply of his a "load of horseshit"?]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

["Oh, of isotopes with very short half lives - no problem.]

" ... NO DUMB-ASS! U235 HAS A HALF LIFE OF 700 MILLION YEARS AND WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE OF THE SCIENCE OF PHYSICS!"

Will you be precise as to our method of so called knowing this?

"OF COURSE I DO AND YOU JUST MADE IT FOR ME! IF WE DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS WE WOULD LONG SINCE HAVE BLOWN OURSELVES UP, YOU [blip]ING MORON!"

We do know how it works when decay rate is sped up.

PLUS we have blown ourselves up a few times too.

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Really? When the [blip] was that?

Health Physics Society : Public Information :
Answer to Question #8270 Submitted to "Ask the Experts"
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8270.html

Read up, [blip].

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Citing first paragraph, which so far totally confirms what I observed:

"As you have apparently inferred, when a radionuclide has a half-life that is long compared to the time interval over which radioactive decay observations are possible, the overall decay rate remains substantially the same and experimental measurements of the change in the activity of a given sample with time are not sufficiently precise to allow determination of the half-life. In such instances, one must employ alternative techniques to evaluate the half-life."

And answering when question : Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Oh, sorry, that was the where question ... but it will help you out with the when question.

"The estimated uncertainty in this value is approximately 3 x 10⁶years."

So, that is the estimated uncertainty? The real one could be bigger?

We have, as I stated in posing the problem, not very direct methods of checking that.

"Naturally, the numbers used in the example were contrived, and the uncertainty in the result would have to consider all the uncertainties involved in the measurement."

Which might mean sth was overlooked.

"We have also not considered the complication associated with possible interference from ²³⁴U, which also occurs in natural uranium and also decays by alpha emission. Counting using alpha particle energy spectrometry is effective in separating the alpha particles from the two uranium isotopes."

Wow ... no doubt at all, like?

As to the actual method, I think I'll try understanding its terms when I have less of a fever and cold.

As presented, it sounds like a shortcut around the problem I posed, but it also implies there might be some complication getting the mol totally right, som complication getting the alpha particles nickel and so on. In other words : I am so far sceptic of this being a real way round.

But, even if it were, the problem of radioactive decay being hastened, like by nuclear wars in Nodian civilisation or like a non-plant hardmelt during Flood, plus in quite a few cases the problems of knowing original amount (hint : for K-Ar the amount of Ar is pretty certainly not a reliable corrective for amount of K originally there), make the actual datings moot.

Mike Hardman

flip flop flip flop flip flop flip flop

[Yes, Sir Redneck! Dis iz vot tepate looks like ven contuctit among people vid sum academic packround! Flip flop iz exactly right! Zo klat you notit it!]

[Wrote previous snide comment before noting his google+ was a 404. He might be in trouble for having spoken up for the truth here.]

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl None of those reactor accidents had anything to do with misunderstanding nuclear reactions, they had to do with the failure of mechanical safety systems and none of them blew up in a nuclear sense so you're incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, but in that case the very exact understanding you pretend we have, including of the non-hastened half life being 700 million years for one isotope, are maybe not that necessary either for avoiding accidents.

[Any more than totally useful. See Harrisburg, Chernobyl and Fukushima.]

If by "none of them blew up in a nuclear sense" you mean none of them went atomic bomb, that is correct, but all three went close enough to do major harm.

Edmond Dantez

+Hans-Georg Lundahl Your understanding of the issues you're trying to argue is abysmal. You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we obviously do. Those are just facts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we obviously do."

Correction:

You mean: You're trying to claim that we don't have reasonably certain knowledge of things that we do.

"Those are just facts."

Correction:

You mean: Those are facts.

Cut out "obvious" and "just". I may or may not take another look at the method they propose but I am not cinfident in advance, and your insulting tone is a moment of irritation which impedes me from actually doing so - on top of being unwarranted.

And of course: "Your understanding of the issues you're trying to argue is abysmal."

Correction: leave the sentence totally out. It does not belong in civilised debate.

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.

Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material I (first 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

Like it or not

we start with the scoffer, whose profile name is profaning Our Lord's name.

« Jeez S. Christ »

It's amazing that you are able to discern this viewpoint when it has been deposed so many years ago that we of proper knowledge no longer care enough about your old defeated arguments to construct the diagram by which you would be able to join us here in the present. If I were to work as hard as you in the endeavor, I am sure I could prove that the Hydrogen molecule is really just Helium in disguise. And who could blame Helium for being so insecure about itself? Let us see how far you will go with this argument, go boldly into this argument Sir, soon you will turn round and find no one following. Enjoy your singular and lonesome view of a world so easily observed to be in contradiction to your ability to perceive it properly.

When I called you [Blip] I was right in doing so and that verdict compounds itself with each banal grasp for more "intellectual" water as you drown in your silly SUPERFLUOUS rants. Continue, you have the floor.

And please stop mis-analyzing the properties regarding the relationships between Uranium, Deuterium, and Plutonium. [sic!] You are about as brilliant as John Morris Pendleton, who claims to be a Chemist when he is actually a Tire-Mechanic with a Chemistry degree from a diploma-mill.

Frankly dude, your "tone" is similar to the Gigantic Rube from outer Space known as Glenn Beck. Are you gonna start crying and emoting about Thomas Paine at some point?

To a layman you might sound educated but to an educated and qualified person of science you sound like a guy who is barely making it through your first day on the job. *

If you had taken Earth Science 101, way back in Junior College, you might not make such a grand fool of yourself in this arena, as you are doing.

*[Arguing is not a job on which THESE guys are my employers!]

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines, its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely.. and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening.. not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document... gawd now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguements, if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you

« Jeez S. Christ »

+auchucknorris Begin the Beguine!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

+auchucknorris "ye so it only has rough certainty and other effects can effect it but your then asserting that because other effect can alter it we shouldnt trust it at all, which is technically fair but does nothing when its not just one fossil from one location we get these time lines"

No fossil is in itself dated by UPb. For starters.

And LOTS of fossils are dated by period layer which in its turn is dated by fossils in it - for a good little vicious circle.

ON TOP of that, they do not superpose, unlike rock layers.

« Jeez S. Christ »

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth.

I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly.

Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you. The "I am arguing politely" routine is a bit old and doesn't fly on our Interwebs. Nice try though.

This is where you remind me that you stopped noticing my comments 'weeks ago" and that I am "beneath debating" and yet none of your claims or fact-sourcing rings true, which only augurs more laughter from the eternal peanut gallery of 'teh interwebs'.

[omitting a blasphemous expletive]

Brooks Anderson

I don't understand this conversation and I have been "doing geology" for more than 50 years.

auchucknorris

+Hans-Georg Lundahl thats cool and alls but before i get started i just need you to state in clear words what you BELEIVE so i can accurately start tearing you to shreds

+Brooks Anderson well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used.. even tho the huge ACCUMULATIVE EVIDENCE. not just one or two out liers have a very convincing case that that didn't happen and for the most part we can roughly gauge the time periods of many with atleast enough certainty to be EXTREMELY SURE the earth isnt 10,000 years old not to mention things in other feilds such as the cosmic background radiation that almost certainly proves both the big bang and age of the universe and MANNYYY other things which i just want him to clarify what his stating before i beguine

Brooks Anderson

OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) .

auchucknorris

+Brooks Anderson not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE but willing to bring up the outliers as evidence with out the same level of skepticism for the "could of's and might of's" that hes using to dismiss the overwhelming majority

« Jeez S. Christ »

Would anyone please explain to me how long it takes for fossil fuels to break down and age to the state they are in now? Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself.

Brooks Anderson

Jeez: :Google, The youngest natural oil on earth There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical.

Mike Hardman

+Jeez S. Christ well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

subdividing

α

“and you keep saying flood.. please tell me your not the type of person i would really be annoyed having to actually bother explaining how there is 0 evidence of a world wide flood ever happening”

OK, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Palaeocene, Eocene and so on fossils are not extant?

Or are you saying they are evidence for sth ELSE than a flood?

Let’s take your idea first. On your view, they are evidence of periods separated by millions of years. In any location where you find Permian deposits at all, that is an accident – it could have been sea in Permian and gotten filled up with an avalanche of rock in Triassic before we get to diggable fossils in Jurassic, which has not been washed away since, for instance. And similarily for each other period.

In that case, SOMEWHERE you might expect to find the same accident (basically) had happened for Permian had also happened for Palaeocene or sth?

Where do you find three layers above each other, not just rock deposits supposedly separated by millions of years, but fossils from the right periods in each rock deposit? Where on earth could you find, not just a trilobite below a dinosaur, but also a smilodon above it? On the law of averages, it ought to have happened somewhere. Not everywhere, but like ten places on earth or sth.

Don’t say Grand Canyon, because all periods represented there, except the very top are shellfish, shellfish, shellfish. Perhaps some finned fish too, I don’t know. These are not the well known icons of land vertebrate faunas we saw in the dinosaur books as kids.

In Karoo, you can find Permian, you can find Triassic, you can even find Triassic. Wouldn’t it be the ideal spot to have already found (after I say this it might be arranged) a Permian Moschops five metres or two metres under a Jurassic Dracovenator regenti?

Now, let’s analyse the Flood scenario – or one of them, the one I find probable. If all these period fossils are really from same time, like Flood, we would expect sth else. A Permian biotope got drowned in Flood water and mud in one place, a Triassic one somewhere else, a Jurassic one somewhere else and a Cretaceous and a Palaeocene or Eocene one elsewhere too.

Guess how Karoo looks?

Moschops capensis is Permian and from Beaufort West:

Palaeocritti Blog : Moschops capensis
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/moschops-capensis.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Moschops capensis
http://www.palaeocritti.com/moschops

Arctognathus curvimola is also Permian and is also from Beaufort :

Palaeocritti Blog : Arctognathus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/arctognathus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Arctognathus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/gorgonopsia/arctognathus

But Massospondylus carinatus is from Jurassic – and it is from Elliott formation.

Palaeocritti Blog : Massospondylus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/massospondylus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Massospondylus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/dinosauria/sauropoda/massospondylus

And Litargosuchus leptorhynchus is from Jurassic and it is also from Elliott formation :

Palaeocritti Blog : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com/2013/11/litargosuchus-leptorhynchus.html

from:

Palaeocritti : Litargosuchus leptorhynchus
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-group/crocodylomorpha/sphenosuchia/litargosuchus

I defy you to go through South Africa on palaeocritti site and find any Jurassic thing from Beaufort or any Permian thing from Elliott:

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
By Location‎ > ‎South Africa
http://www.palaeocritti.com/by-location/south-africa

And South Africa is NOT the only place where I have looked. My backup blog …

Palaeocritti Blog
http://palaeocritti.blogspot.com

… for their site …

Palaeocritti - a guide to prehistoric animals
http://www.palaeocritti.com/home

… is far behind, but you can see how many [or few, if you like] of the localities I have already gone through, totally or partially without EVER finding a trilobite under or a smilodon over a dinosaur in same spot – or even same general locality, unless we go to borders between periods that are horizontal rather than vertical in the terrain. To me that means the evidence fits the Flood better than the Evolution scenario of Litargosuchus leptorhynchus “developing later on the tree of life than” Moschops capensis. How you want to make it fit your world view, I am curious.

Did I hear “there must be some place”? Find it. I have spent MONTHS looking. Did I hear “it’s just a fluke”? Well, what about your own words: ” its based one LOTS of samples with LOTS of location variety and the fact they they all match up makes it the more likely answer than "all these things COULD of happened to throw it off" but seeing as we base science on what is MOST likely, because NOTHING is certain until we have concrete evidence of something ACTUALLY interfering your MAYBE hypohtisis is not ruled out but just highly unlikely”

”not to mention it came from a book made up of stolen stories ducktaped from other ancient religions and is in no way a credible scientific document”

Nice try, but how do you propose to prove, how do you think the experts YOU rely on have proven (if they have so) that: “Flood happened, Babylonians told story, Moses told story” is NOT what happened; and that: “Flood didn’t happen or just happened locally, Babylonians invented story (perhaps from memories of a local flood), and Ezra plagiarised story in a book he fraudulently attributed to Moses” IS what happened? How do you propose to prove any such preference against credibility of a particular source?

Besides, again, further up the thread I also dealt with that one. Could have saved yourself trouble by looking first and answering then.

”[deleted a profanation] now i HAVE to look at the links to see what kind of moron im talking to.. because if your who i think your going to turn out to be.. you cant win, citing one feild of science when all these other feilds either disprove components of you arguments”

OK, every time I beat you one one field, you can repeat over and over again that I have just picked a detail and there are all these OTHER sciences (which you conveniently hadn’t cited yet) which completely disprove me … I sense a bit of a bad looser syndrome. When I beat you on the next item, are you going to get back to items I already beat you on and hope I had forgotten the answer I gave? Think again.

”if you try n tell me the earth is 10,000 years old and dinisours were whiped out in the flood your about to get floor moped by a guy who knows general knowledge of the hows and whys of basically all feilds of science about how the universe to how this solar system to how this planet, to how life, to how we came about, like i have a chornological order of the hows and whys of every thing up to this point so its not going to be funny (besides for me), so i dare you, state in a clear scentense "the earth is 10,000 years old, evolution doesnt exist and we walked with dinosaurs" so i can beguine on you”

I can't.

Sorry, but I can't!

I can’t state the Earth is ten thousand years old!

You see, I know the general hows and whys and in which order and it doesn’t add up to 10,000 years. St Jerome concluded from LXX text that Christ was born 5199 years after He had created Heaven and Earth.

One more, I am an ex-evolutionist. I know the general hows and whys and in which orders of YOUR story or myth quite as well as my own. Stating that “all scientists” agree (when that is even not the case, but a superficial impression which gives you as much credibility as a scientist as women priest Anglicans or Lutherans have as theologians, if not less) is just telling me the story tellers in question remember their story. I wasn’t doubting they could tell it, I was stating they couldn’t prove it. And explaining (especially explanations I will poke holes in and then you will whine again about “you can’t win on just one item, when all the other fields in science ….” ) with me does not count as proving. Nor do you score a victory by quickly changing the subject each time I score one from the arguments given.

β

Praise be eternally to Our Lord and God Jesus Christ!

Now for the foul type (whose profile takes His holy name in vain):

” I'm really enjoying the brutal arrogance of your indifference to the truth of this subject. It's like watching one of those ISIS dudes mishandle a grenade, for those 5.3 seconds there is a voyeuristic schadenfreude- then BAM!! The funny thing is, the true cold Morality of the Universe could care less if you wish to shove your own head in the sand and hum "Mary Had A Little Lamb" to block out the sounds of truth. “

Did I hear you compare a peaceful creationist to an ISIS thug?

”Oh yeah, I am forgetting something...uh. Shit. I forgot because I am so stoned on Hash. Wait! I remember now! You're a dumb [blip]. that was it. Whew! i am glad I didn't forget that or leave that out. You might start getting the idea that someone is respecting you.”

There are people respecting me more than they respect you.

”I feel like the doctors have released you from care before you were ready. They should have at least sealed your lobotomy hole back up properly. “

Did I get it right that you recommend psychiatry to get involved as thugs for your ideology against those not sharing it? Ha, that explains some of the evolutionist success! You can go on about “people had to believe in the Middle Ages, or they got burned on a stake” but what about the similar and more damaging threat of psychiatry mistreatment? Think of what you just said. Or let someone else do the thinking, till you are less stoned!

γ

+auchucknorris again:

C’mon! What was I saying about fleeing from the issue at hand?

“not while hes got nit picked evidence he has no comprehension of in the 1st place, hell just keep reciting the semi scientific BS hes been feed with no clue you've already proven him wrong, because from what hes alerady stated hes willing to assume that things like a flood and nuclear bombs COULD throw of readings for ALL THE VAST CORROBORATING EVIDENCE”

And how about getting some kind of idea of what your opposition is actually saying?

” well i dont like to assume so i dont want to start on this hans guy but from what i can tell hes one of those people who believe there was a guy on a boat and a huge flood and some how that threw off all carbon dating so it cant be used”

If you had looked up earlier parts in the thread, you would very much have known this is NOT what I am saying and NOT what Tas Walker is saying. Have you EVER heard of the initial buildup problem? ALSO, carbon dating has something to do with dating human remains in 20,000 years BP, but nothing to do with YOUR dating of dinos or trilobites. It has been tried on them but generally on creationist initiative. If a dino bone dates 20,000 to 40,000 BP by carbon dating, that is not refuting Biblical chronology, due to initial buildup, but it is pretty well, due to similarity of carbon levels in atmosphere at same time and due to similarity of decay rate, at least not very corroborating the dates given by other methods.

δ

+Brooks Anderson "OK Like I wrote, I simply don,t understand his arguments. I'm guessing that he is a "believer" so no amount of evidence is going to offset his FAITH (belief without evidence) . "

Madame, that is what I guess about you. Brooks is a girls' name, right? You sound like a true believer in my former religion (from age 6 - 8, about), someone who will just block out any rational argumentation against it and say "I just don't understand" and feel reassured if a manly but not very logic type just reassures you. The rest of what I say here is just in case I am wrong:

I was not only arguing with the others and with you too, but I asked you about a specific question about California.

Supposing a red sandstone usually lies above a white lime stone all over the place, but in Western California, it is the white limestone which lies above the red sandstone. Or whatever the case may be, since so far you did not specify, I'll be free enough to invent by reconstruction what you might have meant and answer that, until you give the specifics.

On your view, the deposits happened same order in Western California too. Then ...

On my view, streams during the Flood mostly directed the deposits for red sandstone onto the shellfish that were reacting or had already reacted so as to give limestone (and God was keeping Noah's ark out of the way and some fish out of the way so they could survive), but right in the region of Western California, the streams with red sand and shellfish came the other way round. If this is wrong, what are the specifics why I should take your view?

Also, on my view, first of all you are not likely to find a vertebrate fossil from one period straight above the vertebrate fossil from another one. But even if there is a mile between two rocks, geologists will look at the stone, presume the formations continued all over, and see if they can fit together two superpositions in them. In that sense you have a professional jargon specific usage of "above" and "below", in that sense you see Jurassic Dracovenator from Elliott formation as being above the Perlmian Moschops from Beaufort West (in Karoo), whatever the geographic distance within that scale. Could I have guessed right that in Western California you have actually found Jurassic and Permian type fossils deposed in the wrong order according to your superpositions?

That is the kind of question I'd ask a geologist, but if Madame prefers taking me for someone who can get heaps of evidence and ignore it, well, why did you bother to read as far as this?

ε

Commenting on a conversation between Madame and the scoffer who abuses the name of Our Lord:

” Is the stuff I am pumping into my Buick evidence of a timeline longer than 10,000 years? If so, I must say the argument wins itself”

Whether it is evidence or not depends on how long it took for it to form.

”There is a 2010 russian research paper online claiming that there is 50 year old oil on the Kamchatca Peninsiula and 5,000 year old oil in the Guymas Basin. These are the youngest reported oil deposits. ”

Could it be they for once carbon dated instead of just assuming it was too old for that? Is 50 years a typo or did I get it right?

”Most are considered to be much (millions of years) older. ”

Like because they are found below some Cretaceous lime stone usually referred to as “shale”, right? And because Cretaceous is supposed to have ended 65 million years ago? Would I be wrong?

”However, I am always skeptical of fantastic claimes for new scientific discoveries out of Russia. Although that country has some first rate scientists and engineers, for some reason, there is a disproportionate number of hucksters and false claims orginating there. So, read the article but, be skeptical. ”

One major reason would be the dechristianisation after the Russian Revolution. Oparin came up with a theory of abiogenesis which Miller Urey has so far NOT substantiated, and Oparin was Russian.

ζ

+Mike Hardman

”well, 1st off, what we call fossil fuel, is simply an element we found that is useful, as far as proof dead leaves/animals create this substance, there is none. ”

For coal, there is proof, in the sense that some coal is tessellated or whatever you like to call it in patterns closely resembling for instance leaves of very great ferns.

For petrol, one evidence it is from animals is that if it were from plants, it would be coal. If there is more chemical evidence to it, I don’t happen to know it.

Are you bothered if this would meaning driving fuel might imply burning remains of pre-Flood men and Nephelim? I have seen some argue that God wanted them to be first squished, then useful. But perhaps it should be about time it became useful as an argument. Not just an asset. Kent Hovind may have come into trouble because some petrol magnate dreads a return to other ways of living than driving cars and other fuels for heating than petrol, if creationism is heard.