Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[AV1611VET]

That is the kind of blasphemy one might hear from a follower of loony Aron Ra; but not on a Christian Forum.

Aron Ra needs our prayers.

He and I went at it once here, then his wife-to-be gave me a doosey of a hard time arguing about the length of cubits.

Pray for them.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You mean "creation scientists" haven't done this already?

Lazy buggers.

You missed the first part of the discussion. Some creation scientists blew a good chuck of their small budget paying for labs to date some 20 or so year-old Mount St. Helen Rocks.

IRC, the "youngest" rocks were determined to be about 350,000 years old. The oldest were dated to be several million.

Someone complained because the creationists didn't tell the labs how old the rocks were. I kid you not!

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

That is the kind of blasphemy one might hear from a follower of loony Aron Ra; but not on a Christian Forum.

The divine inspiration of scripture is a matter of faith, not evidence.

You seem unusually bigoted toward Christians and the Word of God, and especially toward those who follow a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Only those who want to impose creationism on public school science classes, or who otherwise desire conservative Evangelical Protestantism to have some kind of special standing amongst other religious views in public policy decisions. You know, the "Christian Nation" folks.

Do you project much? I was originally posting on an eschatology board, I joined these threads because of what appeared to be rampant condescension by "morally-superior" evolutionists against creationists, not to mention the hero worship of the prophet of evolutionism, Charlie Darwin.

Who worships Darwin? He is remembered for his original insight, but the theory of evolution has moved on since his day.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

That's a lie.

It's also because creationists tell themselves these lies that reinforces they have zero clue what they are really up against.

Okay, tell us, how is evolution useful in engineering or science?

Dan

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay, tell us, how is evolution useful in engineering or science?

Dan

Wouldn’t you like to know.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Setting aside the well founded dating of these two groups of rocks by radiometric methods, the following conditions are some of the further reasons not to make such an assumption:

• Many rocks in both groups have mineralogies that could only have been developed at considerable depth within the mantle, with the rocks subsequently becoming exhumed. The rate of eorsion and isotatic uplift, or diapiric activity to achieve that exhumation in the required time frame exceeds by orders of magnitude any postulated mechanism. Thus far no creation scientist has - to my knowledge - even offered a provisional explanation for this that is consistent with basic physics.
• Some rocks in both groups have internal structures, including mineral orientation and segregation into leucocratic and melanocratic bands that would have to have proceeded at a rate that exceeds by an order of magnitude any postulated mechanism. Thus far no creation scientist has - to my knowledge - even offered a provisional explanation for this that is consistent with basic physics.
• Some rocks in both groups lie beneath thick layers of sedimentary rock. The time required for that rock to be deposited, using any reasonable figure for deposition rates, is measured in millions and hundreds of millions of years, not thousands.
• The calculations in the previous example become even more damaging to the notion of young ages for these rocks if we take into account the numerous diastems and cryptic unconformities in any sedimentary sequence.
• Komatiite lavas are found only in early pre-Cambrian rocks. Their genesis requires HT magmas and a mantle temperature profile that could not cool to present levels in a few thousand years.
• Dozens (scores? hundreds?) of other specific examples that individually point to the gross implausability of pre-Cambrian rocks being only a few thousand years old, but in combination render the idea indefensible.

You assume creation geologists have not considered old-earth assumptions? I know of only a fraction of what they have uncovered thus far; but I do know that they are giddy, not gloomy. And not only the geologists. The biologists, geneticists, archaeologists, and even the astronomers are gaining more an more confidence in the historical accuracy of the Word of God.

Is it any wonder? After all, the ancient Bible teaches us that the earth is round and hangs on nothing (e.g., it "floats" in space); that the oceans and atmosphere have currents; that the life of the flesh is in the blood; that time had a beginning (move over, Einstein); and even that Adam was formed first, and then Eve.Think of the genetic implications of that last statement? LOL!

However, if you still want to make that assumption and carry out the tests, why - as Jimmy D has already asked - haven't creation scientists done so?

They did. Decades-old Mount St. Helens' rocks were dated to about .35 to 2 million years old in commercial labs.

This would be a perfect way of refuting Old Earth theory, if your view is correct. Instead, we get a handful of instances where through ignorance, incompetence, or malign intent, creationists have used the wrong method and then reached an unwarranted conclusion. It's a three ring circus with no jugglers, no trapeze artists, no bareback horse riders, just a bunch of clowns.

It is a young science, and it is not watered by the public trough, so resources are scarce. Yet, the numbers are growing.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

no you don’t get it . You can calculate long it takes to form a specific layer. Then you add up those times . You’ll get an approximate date ( all old earth) for a specific formation.

You must first know the ages of the layers. But that still doesn't explain why radiometric dating requires an approximate age of the rocks being tested before the dating can be considered accurate. It sounds like circular reasoning to me.

You don’t need radiodating to have evidence that the earth is very old. The 18th century naturalists figured that out too. Umm, by the way, this IS The 21st century

How did geologists first determine the age of the layers?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Your statement is far too broad. Being opposed to a discontented Evangelical Protestant minority is hardly the same thing as being "anti-Christian."

I have not witnessed anyone on the far-left being anything but anti-Christian; nor can I imagine it.

However, I do understand that being opposed to a self-righteous evolutionism majority is hardly the same thing as being anti-science.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

When are you fellows going to throw in the towel and admit that all critters in the fossil record appeared abruptly, fully-formed, and with no ancestors.

Dan

when are you gonna stop lying to yourself ?

Immediately after I begin, if I ever begin.

Now, answer my question, if you dare. You have had over 160 years since Darwin turned the world upside down, to turn the fossil strata upside down, and you haven't found a trace of a transitional line. It is time for you to throw in the towel and admit that common descent was just a big lie.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So you have no information to counter that list of your serial-philanderer's failures, but feel compelled to defend him nonetheless. Sad.

Did you say you were a serial slanderer? Appears so.

I'll bet you really despise the serial-philanderer and accused rapist, Billy-Boy Clinton, don't you?

Dan

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What is with all this misdirection? You seem desperate to avoid the serious questions about the validity of evolution.

This is the article in question:

Gone Fishin’ for a Missing Link? (A Preliminary Response)
Will you ever get around to providing any proof of macroevolution?

Dan

So, I'm curious...

In your learned opinion, what mechanisms differ between microevolution and macroevolution? Now, just to be clear, I don't want definitions of what you think they mean & how one is observable & the other is imagination, describe to us what goes on that's different between these two forms of evolution, is it that there's some unique way the genome is modified between the two, or is there some parts of the genome that can't change? What are the unique mechanisms that separate the two?

I guess what I want to know is: How would you falsify your opinion at the genomic/mechanism level that microevolution happens and macroevolution does not?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Your quoting Ahlberg and Clack is hilarious. She trained ahlberg and she’s THE world class expert in fishopods evolution . So please continue to take her quotes out of context or niggle over her wording instead of actually looking at those fossils and I’ll continue to laugh at you . Panderichthys is a fish by the way . The scapula is attached to the back of the skull roof by the cleithrum (like all fish ) which you cannot say about Tiktaalik which does have a very short neck .

What do the fossils prove, other than marine waters once covered the entire earth; that some paleontologists have vivid imaginations; and that Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish?

Tiktaalik pelvis - creation.com​

This is a review of Jennifer Clack's book:

Gaining Ground The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods - creation.com​

Dan

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What do the fossils prove, other than marine waters once covered the entire earth; that some paleontologists have vivid imaginations; and that Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish?

Tiktaalik pelvis - creation.com​

This is a review of Jennifer Clack's book:

Gaining Ground The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods - creation.com​

Dan

You keep quoting creationist propaganda mills as if they have a point - you do know that the scientific community is completely devoid of that trash? Why isn't their "research" ever referenced? Do you think it's because of some grand worldwide conspiracy about the truth of your particular version of your particular religion?

Facts, observation and evidence ftw!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not? You have no concrete proof rocks are older than 7500 years, do you? Try it with the young earth estimates and you will see how "accurate" radiometric dating really is. LOL!

Dan

I'd rather trust scientists than some nobody on the internet who obviously knows next to nothing about science.
So, again: Why should we assume that?

 

[Jimmy D]

You missed the first part of the discussion.

Maybe, but I don't think so.

Some creation scientists blew a good chuck of their small budget paying for labs to date some 20 or so year-old Mount St. Helen Rocks.

I saw that bit. But that isn't "re-dating" precambrian rock.

Besides, I believe Brightmoon pointed out the pointlessness of that exercise anyway.

So, let us assume all precambrian rocks are less than 7,500 years old, and all post-precambrian are less than 5,000 years old, and have them redated.

So "they" haven't done the above as far as I can see.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Bible Research Tools

Do I get a response on the observed growth of the himilayas?

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe, but I don't think so.



I saw that bit. But that isn't "re-dating" precambrian rock.

Besides, I believe Brightmoon pointed out the pointlessness of that exercise anyway.




So "they" haven't done the above as far as I can see.

@Bible Research Tools

I work with archaeologists who submit artifacts for carbon dating, regularly. They don't assume ages of billions of years, but they often have carbon dated artifacts dated far older than a few thousand years.

You insist that the earth is young and that there is no evidence for an old earth, but you don't actually know anything about geology. And you have yet to address several of my responses.

You said there shouldn't be paleozoic bioturbation. I gave you examples of complex subsurface burrow systems that obstructed subsurface lamination throughout the geologic column.

You have been unable to explain how an overturned angular unconformity could form within a megasequence that was allegedly deposited by a single wave.

You have asked how rocks can bend. I showed you examples of ductile deformation and strained trilobites that have been deformed along with rock, there proving that ductile deformation is how rocks bend, as opposed to soft sediment bending.

I also told you that soft sediment would not undergo activities such as cataclastic deformation and regular thrust faulting. Yet you still seem to believe that rocks hardened after uplift and deformation. You dont get clean compressional fractures like this when you squeeze soft wet sediment. The rocks were hardened prior to deformation.

You seemed to find it laughable that slow tectonic motion could lift the himilayas. I taught you that the uplift of the himilayas is readily observable and that they're growing more and more every year.
Highest Mountain | Everest

You never explained how dinosaur tracks could form in the middle of a megasequence and claimed that the tracks we're made by fleeing animals. I showed you tracks of flying pterodactyls that were actually just casually walking around.
THE LATE CRETACEOUS VERTEBRATE ICHNOFACIES OF BOLIVIA - FACTS AND IMPLICATIONS | Meyer | Publicación Electrónica de la Asociación Paleontológica Argentina

You claimed that all the tracks we're going in a single direction, but in fact, tracks at Cal orcko are in various directions, some also change direction.

(East to West)

(going south to north)

(southwest to northeast)

Yet you continue to deny the fact that you're wrong on all of these topics.

@NobleMouse I just want you to witness this too. This is what you're supporting .

 

[Brightmoon]

You must first know the ages of the layers. But that still doesn't explain why radiometric dating requires an approximate age of the rocks being tested before the dating can be considered accurate. It sounds like circular reasoning to me.



How did geologists first determine the age of the layers?

Dan

As at least 2 professional geologist on CF have pointed out , 1 it takes time to form each layer . Creationists tend to forget that obvious fact or they handwave it away because they know that the average creationist is not going to realize that they did that. 2 erosional features on top of geological layers also take time. 3 movement of chunks of layers due ultimately to plate tectonics can sometimes take a long time . And subsequent sediments overlaid flat on top of these or the higher chunk erodes flat also takes time.
There’s no reason to believe that the earth is young and as I’ve stated before , 18th century naturalists like Hutton realized this fairly quickly. You don’t need radiodating to demonstrate that the earth is very old.

What do the fossils prove, other than marine waters once covered the entire earth; that some paleontologists have vivid imaginations; and that Tiktaalik is a lobe-finned fish?

Tiktaalik pelvis - creation.com​

This is a review of Jennifer Clack's book:

Gaining Ground The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods - creation.com​

Dan

since I have Clack’s 1st edition in my personal library I don’t need to read a phony, probably lying, review of it .
Tiktaalik is a fishopod ,an intermediate between lobefin fish and amphibians . It has a neck and an articulating wrist that could support it weight underwater.

 

[Speedwell]

I have not witnessed anyone on the far-left being anything but anti-Christian; nor can I imagine it.

Dan

You need to get around more. Many on the Left are Christians.

 

[Ophiolite]

You assume creation geologists have not considered old-earth assumptions? I know of only a fraction of what they have uncovered thus far; but I do know that they are giddy, not gloomy. And not only the geologists. The biologists, geneticists, archaeologists, and even the astronomers are gaining more an more confidence in the historical accuracy of the Word of God.

I see. I provide a selection of examples from the many that could have been provided and you respond with further assertions lacking any support. Instead you talk of the confidence of Creationist scientists. That isn't just a weak refutation, it isn't a refutation at all. Now, if this material exists, then produce it - actual evidence, not further fatuous opinions.

Is it any wonder? After all, the ancient Bible teaches us that the earth is round and hangs on nothing (e.g., it "floats" in space); that the oceans and atmosphere have currents; that the life of the flesh is in the blood; that time had a beginning (move over, Einstein); and even that Adam was formed first, and then Eve.Think of the genetic implications of that last statement? LOL!

That's all you've got!

• The interpretation of the Earth's location is disputed.
• It didn't require a message from God to notice winds, tides and ocean flows.
• It didn't require divine revelation to notice that when people bled out they died.
• How many creation myths can you name that do not have a beginning to time?
• To my knowledge the genetic implications would contradict the Bible's claim. I ask the biologists here to confirm, or correct, my understanding that the female is the "basic" form.

They did. Decades-old Mount St. Helens' rocks were dated to about .35 to 2 million years old in commercial labs.

No! I specifically addressed this. I justifiably discounted such egregious and probably deliberate ignorance. Here are the relevant words: "Instead, we get a handful of instances where through ignorance, incompetence, or malign intent, creationists have used the wrong method and then reached an unwarranted conclusion." The Mount St. Helen's example was the one foremost in my mind.
Where is the systematic examination of multiple samples, including controls, in the manner you yourself proposed? Nowhere. I suggest you come up with something material, or alternatively beat a retreat while you still have some integrity left.