Geological dating techniques

[time]

The topic of this thread is geological dating techniques. You also brought up the subject trying to imply that plate tectonics was not understood.

Sadly you just can't admit that you are wrong.

In many ways, as I pointed out, science admits not knowing.

 

[time]

We can also "see" slow rates of subduction in the past. There has never been the rapid subduction of the hydroplate theory of Brown.

How do you know there was no rapid subduction?

 

[Loudmouth]

No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past.

dad's claims are just made up fantasies. He has no evidence for those claims.

I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth.

We can directly measure time outside the bubble of the Earth in the field of astronomy.

The evidence says man was here more than twice the time you have believed. That evidence is not in the form of fossils. Dad pointed out that there was no fossils for man in the days of Noah. The evidence I see in recent news is footprints!

"Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Your story was wrong. Now if you could actually go deep down and observe how things actually are and actually work under the earth, I have no doubt that your stories would be blown to kingdom come there as well. Science preys on ignorance.

Nowhere does it say modern humans made those footprints.

 

[time]

I've addressed the OP in an earlier post.

And no, it isn't that you reject something from geology, it's your use of language that tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

Ridge push and slab pull? Well, how fast was the push or pull? Addressing some issues vaguely many posts back, followed by some childish charges and vague accusations later is hardly really addressing the issues.

 

[Loudmouth]

How do you know there was no rapid subduction?

Where on this graph do you see rapid subduction?

The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands

 

[time]

dad's claims are just made up fantasies. He has no evidence for those clai

Then he is in good company, because your are.

We can directly measure time outside the bubble of the Earth in the field of astronomy.

Now you are stepping on my toes.

Nowhere does it say modern humans made those footprints.

Maybe apes in costume?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then he is in good company, because your are.

I have provided evidence.

 

[time]

Where on this graph do you see rapid subduction?

The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands

Changing ratios over thousands of years or hundreds, or weeks, or whatever, do not mean slow movement! The issue is how ratios changed, and how fast.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past. I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth. I really don't want to argue about it. I do not accept beliefs about the unknown that you offer.

dad simply makes up things to support his own false interpretation of Genesis. It is different from all other Christians here, at least that I have seen.

The evidence says man was here more than twice the time you have believed. That evidence is not in the form of fossils. Dad pointed out that there was no fossils for man in the days of Noah. The evidence I see in recent news is footprints!

"Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Your story was wrong. Now if you could actually go deep down and observe how things actually are and actually work under the earth, I have no doubt that your stories would be blown to kingdom come there as well. Science preys on ignorance.

Did you even understand that link? It does not say that man existed 5.7 million years ago. It says that those prints were made by hominims. Hominims include species like Australopithecus afarensis. It only means that our ancestors were not confined to Africa. It helps if you read and understand the articles that you post. This article may clear up your confusion:

Hominini - Wikipedia

Hominims usually refers to those in the line that eventually led to humans after the we split off from the line that eventually led to chimpanzees and bonobos.

 

[time]

I have provided evidence.

Ratios on a graph is not evidence for slow subduction is it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Changing ratios over thousands of years or hundreds, or weeks, or whatever, do not mean slow movement!

Why doesn't that graph evidence slow movement of the Pacific plate?

The issue is how ratios changed, and how fast.

That is only an issue for people who ignore the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ratios on a graph is not evidence for slow subduction is it?

Why not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ratios on a graph is not evidence for slow subduction is it?

Actually it is. You obviously do not understand the nature of evidence. Most creationists don't.

I always offer to discuss the nature of evidence with creationists. Very few take me up on it.

 

[TBDude65]

Ridge push and slab pull? Well, how fast was the push or pull? Addressing some issues vaguely many posts back, followed by some childish charges and vague accusations later is hardly really addressing the issues.

The fact that you are asking about how "fast" these processes occur means that you've not studied the rates of plate motion.

But despite this, you claim that the speed of plate motion has slowed, except that too is ignorant. Plate motions and rates of subduction aren't constant for any given boundary or plate, let alone through time. Rates of plate motion, subduction, and spreading are not constants through time and it is not claimed to be so by the theory of plate tectonics. Meaning you've constructed a straw man of the scientific theory.

As for the evidence for ridge push and slab pull, it's basic physics. Something with mass and momentum, will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. Plates move because they are massive, have a large mass and therefore a lot of inertia and momentum, and the sediments and water on subducting slabs provides lubrication. This isn't a controversial scientific idea. This is a core principle of the scientific theory of plate tectonics. Rejecting it would be akin to rejecting any other scientific theory for equally ignorant reasons.

You sound like someone who once took a geology course in college, but who's understanding of the material was lacking. Resulting in an overconfident ignorance

 

[time]

dad simply makes up things to support his own false interpretation of Genesis.

Name something made up?

Did you even understand that link? It does not say that man existed 5.7 million years ago. It says that those prints were made by hominims. Hominims include species like Australopithecus afarensis. It only means that our ancestors were not confined to Africa. It helps if you read and understand the articles that you post. This article may clear up your confusion:

Hominini - Wikipedia

Did you miss this in the article?

"Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux ("big toe") that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side. The Laetoli footprints, thought to have been made by Australopithecus, are quite similar to those of modern humans except that the heel is narrower and the sole lacks a proper arch"

Early man may have had differences like that. Trying to invoke some ancient anscestor to man is a made up story.

 

[Loudmouth]

Early man may have had differences like that. Trying to invoke some ancient anscestor to man is a made up story.

Doesn't change the fact that those footprints are not consistent with modern humans as you had claimed before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name something made up?

Did you miss this in the article?

"Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux ("big toe") that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side. The Laetoli footprints, thought to have been made by Australopithecus, are quite similar to those of modern humans except that the heel is narrower and the sole lacks a proper arch"

Early man may have had differences like that. Trying to invoke some ancient anscestor to man is a made up story.

Yes, I saw that. So what? Have you seen the feet of Australopithecus?

Australopithecus was a hominin, they do not have a "true arch" but they have more of an arch than other apes. Here is another article on their feet that may help you:

The feet of Australopithecus afarensis

I do have a problem with some of the nomenclature in the article that you linked. They used the word "apes" improperly. What they should have said was "other apes" or "non-hominin" apes. You are I are apes after all. Denying facts will get you nowhere.

Those were simply the prints of a hominin, probably very closely related to Australopithecus, if not a member of that genus.

 

[SkyWriting]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

You are correct. An impartial researcher offers supporting data and the methodology used.
Video is expensive to produce and this virtually guarantees a video production has an agenda.

 

[time]

The topic of this thread is geological dating techniques. .

You have what to say about it? One technique is drift and things like rates of subduction, is it not?

 

[joshua 1 9]

How do you know there was no rapid subduction?

The cause of seduction was a catastrophic event. After the dinosaurs began to devour each other. The story of Noah and his flood was a shadow & type of the event that took place at Pangaea.

 

[time]

Why doesn't that graph evidence slow movement of the Pacific plate

Why does it show any rate of movement? Rather it shows changes in isotope ratios, does it not?