Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[Justatruthseeker]

You really need to change your username if you are going to repeat lies like this that have been debunked time after time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

Debunked, lol.

He sends me to a internet link page, which as it's source uses another internet hack website, by hack journalists, no less. What, can't find any real science to back up your stories????

debunked, I can't stop laughing......

 

[RealityCheck01]

You make a mistake....

You make a mistake about the burden of proof, Tolkien R.R.J.
You are claiming a young Earth. The burden is on you to provide evidence for that young Earth. What you have provided is a Gish gallop of ignorance and lies from YEC source(s).

You claimed that the Grand Canyon was evidence for a young Earth.

KomatiiteBIF explained how a "...many were folded while still wet." claim was completely wrong.

Now it is your turn.

 

[Job 33:6]

You make a mistake thinking i am a good representative of creation. I am just a crazy christian with to much time on his hands. Yet I think we both know what is going on here. You have old earth assumptions about formations formation and assumptions about the floods inability to produce hard rock in a short time. Once those assumptions are removed we see no objections from observation. I saw nothing wrong with how you see the formation formed other than time. But unless you can give me a specific reason as to why the features take long ages, your objection is based on assumptions that the flood could not produce hard rocks in short time or seemingly, that creationist deny any plate movement.

So i ask once more, what from observation and not assumption do you point to that you believe indicates long time.

Why dont you try explaining how the angular unconformity formed, and we can expose why it is that such a thing cannot be formed in any short period of time.

It seems to me that you are unable to respond to the request.

 

[Job 33:6]

KomatiiteBIF explained how a "...many were folded while still wet." claim was completely wrong.

Now it is your turn.

And this is correct. I did point out how the formations being described in the grand canyon actually have features such as propagating faults and fractures throughout them, thereby showing us that indeed they were hard prior to folding. If they were not hardened, then they would not have fractured.

I also described strained fossil trilobites, which further demonstrate that folds in rock are formed by both brittle and ductile deformation as a product of plate tectonics.

And the response "well they just fractured after the flood" is insufficient as the formations I have described above are present in superpositionally central places within stratigraphic megasequences of the paleozoic.

@Tolkien R.R.J

Now, if you could kindly tell me how it is that you think a global flood could have formed the angular unconformity I described, I would appreciate it.

But of course, the truth is that you are unable to do so, hence why you are not responding to the question.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You make a mistake about the burden of proof, Tolkien R.R.J.
You are claiming a young Earth. The burden is on you to provide evidence for that young Earth. What you have provided is a Gish gallop of ignorance and lies from YEC source(s).

You claimed that the Grand Canyon was evidence for a young Earth.

KomatiiteBIF explained how a "...many were folded while still wet." claim was completely wrong.

Now it is your turn.

I'll tell you what, settle the issue. Fold rocks in the laboratory without fracturing them and then we will discuss your fantasies that it happens..... Not squish them, fold them repeatedly......

Oh wait, we already have.

http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/folding/teachers.pdf

By using soft powders, Lol...... can we say not dried and hardened sediments.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why dont you try explaining how the angular unconformity formed, and we can expose why it is that such a thing cannot be formed in any short period of time.

It seems to me that you are unable to respond to the request.

I gave you the links, you simply refuse to learn.

Would a video help?

People never learn unless they have to work for the information they glean....

 

[RealityCheck01]

He sends me to a internet link page, which as it's source uses another internet hack website, by hack journalists, no less.

8 Augist 2018 Justatruthseeker: A set of "hack" insults and lies rather than addressing the linked science.

He was sent to the TalkOrigins Archive with its list of creationist claims and why they are scientifically wrong. These are from the TalkOrigins Usenet newsgroup.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

Claim CD410 is creationist stupidity about the burial of a squadron of planes on the Greenland coast by ices and snow. The stupidity is:

1. The depth of ices and snow at the site says nothing about the number of dust layers in ice cores laid down once each year in summer.
2. The Greenland ice cores are taken in the different conditions of the Greenland interior.
3. A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice does not state what kind of layers they are.
   The temperatures on the Greenland coast give multiple melts each summer, each of which creates a layer that is not a dust layer. The temperatures in the Greenland inferior causes a few melts a century.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'll tell you what, settle the issue.

8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "Fold rocks in the laboratory without fracturing them" lie by citing a high school demonstration.

It is abysmally ignorant to think that a high school would have the equipment to exert the pressures to bend actual rock. Then we read:
The folding of rocks: lab simulations: teacher’s notes

This activity is designed for students aged 14-16 as an introduction to demonstrate folding and faulting of layers of rock, caused by lateral pressure (linked to plate tectonics).

Also:
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance about the actual point being made about Grand Canyon geology.
It is Tolkien R.R.J. who is ignorantly parroting a YEC claim that strata around the Grand Canyon had to be folded when wet. He has to show that this is the only way the folded rocks were formed.

KomatiiteBIF explained how a "...many were folded while still wet." claim was completely wrong. That is because there are faults running through the formations. There is the well known, textbook geology that rocks can fold.

ETA: Experimental structural geology (1966 !)

Experimental work in structural geology comprises principally high-pressure deformation of rock samples and construction of dynamic scale models. During the first half of this century laboratory studies of rock deformation have simulated a wide range of geological conditions in respect of pressure, temperature and strain rate. These studies have increased our understanding of mechanisms by which rock deformation proceeds. Scale models achieve their greatest value when used to illustrate structural processes. Their results aid the appreciation of theoretically derived structural relationships and serve also to relate the stages of structural development that are observed in separate field occurrences

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll tell you what, settle the issue. Fold rocks in the laboratory without fracturing them and then we will discuss your fantasies that it happens..... Not squish them, fold them repeatedly......

Oh wait, we already have.

http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/folding/teachers.pdf

By using soft powders, Lol...... can we say not dried and hardened sediments.......

What are we in the first grade here? Some little grade school rainbow clay experiment? hahaha.

Where are the propogating faults? Where is the cataclastic deformation?

I took you off of ignore just to see what you were blabbering about. Now i will put you back on ignore for the next 6 months or so.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Please read my op before you respond to it, usually a good idea.

You were the one parroting a list of debunked decades ago old earth myths and lies. You are the one that needs to support the myths and remove the lies with evidence.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: What are the other geological process that make "erosion rates of continents" into a lie (hint: Himalayas, Andes, the country of New Zealand).

So you are suggesting than erosion does not happen because of uplift in some areas? I always said evolutionist were science deniers.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: The YEC claim that the sea cannot contain its measured salt is unsupported and starts with a probable "maximum possible age of 62 million years""
Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked

I would stop reading talkorigins if you want truth. From my op

The rate of sodium output is only 27% of the input. Or 122 million tons each year using the most generous assumptions to evolutionist the maximum possible amount is 206 million tones each year.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You cited a lie that astronomers consider spiral arms to be persistent physical features when that was discarded in 1926.

Lies its all lies, the microscopes are full of lies, demons everywhere dont believe what you say its all lies the earth is flat and evolution is true. Beware, dont see these pictures, they were invented by fundamental Christians to fool you into believing the bible.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...a&hsimp=yhs-syn&type=asbw_7187_CHW_US_tid1103

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Did not understand the YEC lie about the sediment accumulation in oceans filling them up.
Ken Ham’s 10 facts that prove creationism – Debunked
The YEC lie is that geology states ocean floors have to be billions of years old and thus accumulation would fill in oceans. The truth is that geology states that ocean floors are a few tens of million years old. They are conveyor belts of rock rising from mid-ocean ridges and descending under continents and into ocean trenches.

Once more from my op.

There is only one know way to remove sediments from the ocean floor by subduction, it is estimated that about 1 billion tons per year of sediments are subducted.

-WW Hay et al 1988 mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction journal of geophysical research 93 [b12] 14,933-940

The other 23 tons accumulate at the ocean bottom, at that rate the sediments would have accumulated in just about 12 million years. According to evolution these processes have been occurring for 3 billion years.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Parrots an "overall decay" of the Earth's magnetic field lie
The deluded lie is that the measured decay in the Earth's magnetic field since 1835 results in the Earth disintegrating 10,000 years ago. That is deluded for a start because we can count hundreds of thousands of annual ice core layers. These idiots assume that a decay measured over a couple of centuries can be extrapolated back a period 50x longer, the decay is exponential and there is no way to measure the Earth's magnetic field before 1825.
CREATIONISTS AND "MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY"

We dont disagree. But we must base on science and what we know. What we know is decay overall this is observed. You might have faith this has not been so in the past to hold your faith of an old earth. But that is science [creation] vs faith [old earth] once more.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "based on faith" lie about the origins of comets.
This is a comet

The Oort cloud is hypothetical because it is currently impossible to observe objects in it. The Kuiper belt is observed to exist. It contains Pluto and many other objects.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "evolutionists" lie about the origins of comets.
This is a comet. Their origins from "storehouses" in the outer solar system are astronomy by astronomers.

SO does my room. Your faith makes you think it can provide you your needed comets to save your religious faith in an old earth. This is not science, you can believe santa can give you some comets and believe in the north pole i dont care. But science [observation] says no and i linked you a few articles saying why its not just faith, but ant science to hold on to your hope the "kuiper" belt could provide you comets for your beliefs.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A lie that uniformitarianism means population growth is constant.
Only the application of uniformitarianism in geology was used as a constant rate of geological processes.

And applied to biology and other areas. Tell me why geology? do you still believe it applies to geology? of course not or you cant believe in an old earth. It is an underlining assumption a way of interpretation. But if this argument causes you to reject uniformtarnism, than we agree.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Explain how fossils of species that died out > 65 million years ago can contain soft tissue that is < 6000 years old?
A bit of idiocy of comparing this to frozen soft tissue exposed to dirt! For that irrelevant case we have soft tissue that has been preserved for 25,000 or 35,000 years !

and 65 million, of course using evolutionist dating. Thus you support my argument.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

8 Augist 2018 Justatruthseeker: A set of "hack" insults and lies rather than addressing the linked science.

He was sent to the TalkOrigins Archive with its list of creationist claims and why they are scientifically wrong. These are from the TalkOrigins Usenet newsgroup.


Claim CD410 is creationist stupidity about the burial of a squadron of planes on the Greenland coast by ices and snow. The stupidity is:

1. The depth of ices and snow at the site says nothing about the number of dust layers in ice cores laid down once each year in summer.
2. The Greenland ice cores are taken in the different conditions of the Greenland interior.
3. A report of "many hundreds" of layers in the ice does not state what kind of layers they are.
   The temperatures on the Greenland coast give multiple melts each summer, each of which creates a layer that is not a dust layer. The temperatures in the Greenland inferior causes a few melts a century.

As RC acuratey stated

"The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."

But his honesty ended the second the quote ended....

The responses linked to are web page articles from hack journalists, not a single scientific peer reviewed paper was submitted in response.

That's the bunk in the debunked claim......

And we find the answer in the very last part of the papers linked to.....

"So, the area in which the Lost Squadron landed, which is southern Greenland c. 10 miles from the east coast, with its high rate of snow accumulation (c. 7 feet/year) vs. the area of GISP2 in central Greenland with its comparatively low rate of snow accumulation (1 foot or so/year) is why 250 feet of
snow represents just 50 years for the Lost Squadron but around 250 years for the
GISP2 ice core.

They then conclude that the layers become more and more compressed, so that each foot represents more time. But the GISP2 area would have received more and more snowfall as global warming decreases back in time. But as usual, hacks always assume uniformity in all of their geological time scenarios. Just as the hacks assume the snowfall has always been 1 foot or so a year in the GISP2 area. Also the 7 feet of snow per year would have compressed the layers more than the same amount of 1 foot per year would have. Critical thinking caps on, dunce caps off please..... So by their own reasoning, the 50 feet should appear as older than the same amount from the 1 foot snowfall, since 7 feet of weight would have compressed the snow more than 1 foot of weight. Hacks people, they are hacks, understand that.... Hacks that can't even use logic correctly. 7 feet of snowfall would compress the layers more than 1 foot of snowfall. Simple mathematical logic....

So in the years before global warming, the areas received even more snowfall, hence the glaciers formed which are now in decline, because now they are only getting 1 foot of snow a year instead of the 7 or more they would have received before the onset of global warming. With those now receiving 7 receiving even more......

So don't let the hacks and their uniformity claims confuse you people. Understand that they want you to believe the area has only received 1 foot of snow forever, but let's understand it receives only 1 foot of snow because of global warming, which is a recent event..... hence the glaciers are declining, not building any longer......

Hacks people, they are hacks wanting you to ignore the truth. That with 5.8 feet a year snowfall, the entire Antarctic depth can be achieved in as little as 1,888 years, let alone all of Greenland's, glaciers.

But they want to pretend that only 1 foot of snow has fallen because that is what they see now during the heights of global warming. Don't be fooled by hackery....... Instead put on your critical thinking caps, not the dunce cap......

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Rant about the parroted blatant "Measurable C-14 Within Ancient Samples" lie and cites YEC stupidity.

Paul Giem (M.A., M.D.) lists deluded expectations of carbon-14 in fossils older than the applicable range of carbon dating.
He essentially lies that "long-age theories" predict no C14 in geologically old samples. Basic physics predicts that after a sample stops absorbing C14 from its environment, radiocarbon dating will give the time of that occurrence. Living organisms stop breathing when they die. Thus radiocarbon dating gives reliable dates for organic material. Minerals such as diamonds stop absorbing C14 from their environment when they form. Thus radiocarbon dating gives reliable dates for diamond formation which can be within "geologically old" formations.

A stupid citation of Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds. My point was that any C14 in diamonds would not come from the atmosphere and is irrelevant to the C14 dating of once living organisms collecting C14 from the atmosphere. The stupidity is citing a article stating "with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma" and measuring that the diamonds formed ~ 60,000 years ago.

An Institute for Creation Research book article? with probable delusions about C14.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "peer reviewed evolutionist are in on this lie" lie and insult .
Scientists in various fields measure the ages of fossils.

I am not sure you are getting this. Carbon-14 is found in ancient samples including diamonds and fossils long after it should have decayed away. Thus their has not been time for them to decay away and the earth or those samples claimed to be over a billion years in age, are in fact young.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

More fact less and irrelevant insults and ignorance. A lie that I deny science, observation or am arguing for or against uniformitarianism. The facts are:

1. All of recorded history shows that summer happens once a year.
2. Summer causes dust to be deposited in snow.
3. Those dust layers show up as dark layers in ice cores.

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Please explain how say 400,000 dark layers in ice cores were deposited in the last 6000 years.
That means that summer happened on average 66 times a year. But then we have recorded history - 400 summers a year?

many false assumptions here my freind.


https://creation.com/ice-sheet-age
https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
https://answersingenesis.org/enviro...e-cores-show-many-tens-of-thousands-of-years/

 

[Job 33:6]

I am not sure you are getting this. Carbon-14 is found in ancient samples including diamonds and fossils long after it should have decayed away. Thus their has not been time for them to decay away and the earth or those samples claimed to be over a billion years in age, are in fact young.

Could you source this? Dare I ask for a source that doesn't come from a young earth creationists?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: Replies to working science with articles containing delusions and lies from creation.com
Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?
There is a lie about the usage of ice-accumulation models which are used to model the lower, not visually clear, layers. In general, the first few tens of thousands of layers (I have seen 55,000 quoted) can be measured by eye and microscope . Glaciers have the additional property that they flow so I suspect that it is multiple ices cores that establish the layer count.
A lie by omission - volcanic ash and isotopic composition are also used to confirm the age of layers.
A delusion of a "700-year Ice Age" creating most of the layers when that requires multiple summers a year .

Greenland Ice Sheet Project

Responded to it the sources you should have read.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

many false assumptions here my freind.


https://creation.com/ice-sheet-age
https://creation.com/the-lost-squadron
https://answersingenesis.org/enviro...e-cores-show-many-tens-of-thousands-of-years/

RC is all false assumptions. Uniformity being the top of the list. As my post above clearly shows with simple snowfall rates....

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

6 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: A "variation in dating methods when applied to the same rock...falsies that first assumption in radiometric dating." lie
Anyone can read the paper, look up what they do not know and see that this is not dating the same rock. The paper dates the formation of 2 minerals in the granite. The paper states the date of formation of the granite. This does not falsify any assumption in radiometric dating. Granite forms by crystalizing from existing minerals. Those minerals can have different dates of formation from each other and the date of crystallization.

3 August 2018 Tolkien R.R.J: You debunk a young Earth by citing a zircon date of 1,483 million years, monazite date of 97 million years and granite date of 20 million years!

And how does 3 dates using 3 methods that all differ not show decay rates differ or at least contamination? How can you get much older dates from a 20mya granite?

 

[Job 33:6]

And how does 3 dates using 3 methods that all differ not show decay rates differ or at least contamination? How can you get much older dates from a 20mya granite?

Someone else replied to this earlier as well. The dating was performed on different parts of the same granite. But granites arent necessarily homogenous . More specifically, zircon inclusions within granite can give older ages than the granite itself.

To explain, it would be like someone making a Hershey chocolate chip on Tuesday. Putting the chocolate chip in cookie dough on Wednesday, then dating the full baked cookie and the chocolate chip and saying "look the cookie is two separate ages!".

Well that's correct. Because the cookie as a whole is made of different aged pieces.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just edited my above grammar^

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Sorry if this has been addressed, but I wanted to start with these "assumptions." I have not yet read the whole thread, but will catch up.



This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We know that contamination can and does happen. We know how to identify and account for it.

By magic? so you find a rock that you did not observe its formation the ground. How do you know its contaminated? you date a rock multiple ways that agree and with fossils. Than a new fossil turns up so you date a new way to agree with the new find, how do we know contamination? because we force it to fit our assumptions.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. Not only does the initial concentration NOT need to be zero. We can DETERMINE how much there initially was. Most of the time it WAS NOT ZERO.

due tell since you were not their to observe its formation or initial parent/daughter ratio.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this. We already KNOW that decay rates have been constant for FAR, FAR longer than is compatible with YEC. If you'd like to know how, I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. However, scientists do not assume that it has always been constant.

Once more this is an impossible assumption you cannot get around. You must assume unifmoritarnism that today rates are what they have always been [no accelerated decay] in the past. This has been shown so i am not sure what good it does denying it.

Change like what? How do you know it could effect the clocks? Have you found something that does effect them? Because scientists have tried everything they can think of, and NOTHING significantly changes the clocks of the elements we use to date the earth.

Further, this is a moot point, because we already know that they have been constant for at least hundreds of millions of years.

My op gives multiple examples, see the following post. The bold is an asumtion you cannot know. You must have faith and against reason as well.

This is a lie. Scientists do not assume this.

This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. We don't need to know if it has NEVER changed. We can only test it for the last 50k years or so. And we know it's been constant at least that long. If it wasn't, then readings we take would not be consistent across tree rings, lake varves, speleothems, coral bands, and ice cores. So, if you want to propose that the rate has changed, then you also must explain how those other methods have ALSO changed, through vastly different mechanisms, in JUST such a way, that they all match up.

Except when they dont. And they only "match up" those that do because when they dont they are dismissed as contaminated etc. And by repeating yourself that these assumptions dont exists, does not make the boggy man go away. They are real and cannot be avoided.

This is a lie. Scientists don't assume this. In fact, they have to account for the contamination introduced BY THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS. They also know how it gets contaminated, how to account for it, and when and why to expect it.

like my op said, when the date does not match the desired result.

If you would like to discuss any of these in more detail, pick ONE to start out with. I don't care about quotes, because I don't trust apologist quotes--I have seen how they literally, and repeatedly lie about the quotes. So don't use them.

I also want YOUR words. You can use a link to SUPPORT your arguments, and small snippets of quoted text ( no more than a couple sentences) but if you just post a wall of copied text, I'm done. It's against the rules of the forum to do that, anyway.

Also, scientists use the word "assumption" in a much different sense than do laymen. If a scientist says something can be assumed, they have good reason to think so--it's backed by plenty of evidence. Not that it matters in this case, because they literally do not assume any of those things on your list.

And it's been like that for DECADES.

I am assuming you are referring to assumptions here. In that case lets focus in on decay rates and the assumption they have been constant through their history. Please tell me why this is not an assumption and i will need more than saying "this is a lie"