Originally Posted by Apathe Any examples of non-volcanic mountains that formed that have no sediment layers? (You can't include any that are non-explored...it has to be a mountain that a scientific crew scaled and specifically found an absense of sediment)?
Longs Peak in Colorado and hundreds of others that are composed of Precambrian metamorphic rocks.
Prove it. There are dozens of PHD creationists (from acredited mainstream universities)who have lined up on their side just as dozens of PHD evolutionists each saying they are right. The Departement of Defense even has people working on "theoretical plate movements" at Los Alamos giving credance that they don't completely buy the evolutionist solution. Their are holes in both sides and just because you believe your side is right, you can't call the other side implausible.
Baumgardner has never been able to model actual plate movements. He also uses unrealistic physical parameters for the rocks and generates enough heat to boil away a significant part of the oceans. This alone would sterilize the earth completely.
I have already refuted all K-Ar dates above. I consider all K-Ar dates eroneous and therefore not submissible as proof of any evolutionist theory.
I do not submit them as proof. Only as evidence. And just what are your qualifications in this field that you can simply throw out data? This is silly.
Agains see above. You are correct that anything 1000, 2000, 3000 years old is too young to use K-Ar. I'm supplying as a theory that the reason you cannot EVER get reliable and consistant K-Ar readings from anywhere on the planet is that the earth is < 10,000 years old and therefore all K-Ar readings are showing "noise." You can't prove me wrong on this one :^).
Nope. It's a simple matter of chemistry and physics. You can deny it if you wish, but you make yourself look kind of silly.
THat's what I call an intelligent response. If you can't make your point any better than this we have nothing to discuss.
...again read above. You can't throw out the data of a 1000 year old volcano because it's "too young" and then take the data as proof of a volcano that COULD BE only 6000 years old.
Actually, you can. If you use the wrong method, it is invalid.
The thread was to provide a theory of how Hawaii falls into the YEC thoeries. I gave one.
You gave an example that simply turns a blind eye on evidence. That's fine for you but I need to explain all of the evidence.
It doesn't matter if it has holes in it because I still submit that the erroneous data from K-Ar in the original example as well as current findings in the C-14 world prove that Hawaii is < 10,000 years old regardless of what YEC theories I come up with to explain how it got there. It's not propaganda...it's facts pulled from evolutionist data that is thrown away because it doesn't fit in their nice little world.
Nope. You took this from your favorite creationist website and parroted it here.
What data tampering? I'm theorizing that if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the K-Ar samples you guys are quoting is simply noise ...
Incorrect. THis data stands out above the noise.
...and that if you take sample 6000 years from now from St. Helens, then you would get similar readings to the Hawaii volcanos because you are measuring noise. K-Ar is worthless if the earth is < 10000 years old as Creationist believe. As for KNM-ER 1470, I DARE any evolutionist to submit a sample for AMS C-14 dating. I would almost bet the farm it will have traces of C-14 far above what contamination can account for and prove the layer it was found in is < 60,000 years old.
Yes, there are low background values of C14. We know this and we know that it is not significant until the signal sinks into the background at greater ages.
If you don't see how rationalizing the readings from Hawaii as being accurate and throwing away the readings from other KNOWN volcanic material because it's "too young" is circular reasoning, then you are blind as a bat.
Do you have any data to present, or are you just ranting?
You have to PROVE that Hawaii is older than 6 or 7 thousand years old before you can ASSUME the K-Ar readings are accurate and the fact that they are not uniform (i.e. the author of the given website shows the figures as "best date" as opposed to average and doesn't list the standard deviation) puts a lot of doubt on the validity of the dating.
That is what the dating does. It shows that the islands are not only older, but they present a progression of ages.
fossils of progressively older fossils should be found in their proper layers...not mixed with newer fossils.
You have said this before. Data, please.
I'm not your secretary...do web searches and you will find the examples.
No, but it is your point. If you cannot support it, well then, bye bye.
YEC's are beginning to embrace parts of dating because of the obvious holes in it. There is no way any evolutionist can prove me wrong on the K-Ar thing because you have to prove the earth is old FIRST to be able to use it which cannot be done.
It's been done.
A concrete example, please.
Also the recent discoveries of C-14 in "C-14 dead" material suggests that the earth is at least < 250,000 years old and all other dating methods are flawed.
Nonsense. This has been known for a long time. And there are explanations for the presence of C14 in high organic materials. Why do you ignore them? (Never mind, I know why).
I am not going to argue each and every YEC theory.
Then don't bring them up.
Do a web search and you'll find someone somewhere that has refuted this or that.
Been there, done that, waste of time.
I am simply saying the thread's author is incorrect to assume that you can't fit Hawaii into a young earth model and I am also saying that K-Ar dating is bogus.
Sure, just throw out the data! That's convenient for you!
The Geocentric model was held onto by religious people similiar to creationism, many similiar claims were made about it, like, if we drop the geocentric model, it will destroy the bible because we could just start dropping everything else in it.
Linear Mode
