Any evolutionists want to debate?

Jet Black · Dec 5, 2004

thirsty said:
I read an article once that what happened at Mount St. Helens does support evolution. The eruption laid down very fine layers of sediment in a very short time. To an evolutionist this indicate many years. It also showed very fast changes in canyons and new ones created. Here is the link.

Nope, I am afraid that is a gross misrepresentation of how a geologist would interpret the findings at Mt St Helens. There is no assumption that multiple layers must take millions of years to be deposited, the actual analysis is far more complex than this. To be honest you need to go and learn a bit about geology before making such statements about what other people think.

Orihalcon · Dec 6, 2004

meh, i think this debate was already over quite a while ago. dude proved that the earth is less than 3000 years old and the Old Testament is a figment of your collective imaginations.

Mistermystery · Dec 6, 2004

dudeoffaith1 said:
Good for you Deus.

Note to self: sarcasm doesn't work on some types of people.

Mistermystery · Dec 6, 2004

dudeoffaith1 said:
Come on, is anyone going to bring out a so called "evolution proof" for me to criticize?

`Someone posted a series of transitionals right above your post a page back. Care to talk about that? Of course not.

Mistermystery · Dec 6, 2004

OccamsLaser said:
Evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed? We know that for a fact, and it's proven by Flintstones cartoons.

Well this thread at least had something funny to offer. The username OccamsLaser is besides darn hillarious, also clever. Nevar foghat the danes!

*Thanks sa-forums.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Dec 6, 2004

So - regurgitated argument already refuted, thoroughly, on another thread.

An argument that requires that geologists are too stupid to tell the difference between sedimentary rocks like limestone, sandstone and mudstone, from layers of volcanic ash.

Troll or liar? Should we have a poll?

Jet Black · Dec 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
So - regurgitated argument already refuted, thoroughly, on another thread.

An argument that requires that geologists are too stupid to tell the difference between sedimentary rocks like limestone, sandstone and mudstone, from layers of volcanic ash.

Troll or liar? Should we have a poll?

I honestly think the former. A4C is so consistent in his avoidance of any point put to him, and his diversionary tactics that it is pretty self evident he is not interested in following the forum guidelines.

mark kennedy · Dec 6, 2004

C

Creationists are told that the earth is billions of years old but never why we should believe that. When the lava dome on Mt St Helens was tested it produced results that said it was a million years old. What possible reason could I have to accept that these dating techniques are anything other then contrived.

"Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test."

Argon dating of Mt St Helen's lava dome

Jet Black · Dec 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
C

Creationists are told that the earth is billions of years old but never why we should believe that. When the lava dome on Mt St Helens was tested it produced results that said it was a million years old. What possible reason could I have to accept that these dating techniques are anything other then contrived.

"Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. The best "proof" for millions of years of earth history in most people's minds is radioisotope dating. But is the method all it's cracked up to be? Can we really trust it? The lava dome at Mount St. Helens provides a rare opportunity for putting radioisotope dating to the test."

Argon dating of Mt St Helen's lava dome

Claim CD013.1:

Click to expand...

The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
Source:

Austin, Steven A., 1996. Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10(3). http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm
Response:

Austin sent his samples to a laboratory which 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.

Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admits. 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.

Links:

Henke, Kevin R., n.d. Young-earth creationist 'dating' of a Mt. St. Helens dacite: The failure of Austin and Swenson to recognize obviously ancient minerals. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

mark kennedy · Dec 6, 2004

The Talk Origins discussion doesn't bother to offer any positive evidence that they are right just rationalizes that creationists are wrong, notice they never tell us why this dating technique is reliable. What the lab was told was that the samples came from dacite and that they should have low argon, that would all they would need to know if these dating techniques were reliable. The presumption has been that the geologic clock is set to zero when the rock becomes magna. There is no real basis for this except they have managed to date the rates of decay and extrapolate from there.

The article also discusses how the same techniques are applied to other areas and the they are allways wrong.

"However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. "

(cited and linked above)

Jet Black · Dec 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
The Talk Origins discussion doesn't bother to offer any positive evidence that they are right just rationalizes that creationists are wrong, notice they never tell us why this dating technique is reliable.

that doesn't matter. Your claim is wrong, Austin was dishonest, and the article shows that. you can contact Geochron labs yourself if you like.

What the lab was told was that the samples came from dacite and that they should have low argon, that would all they would need to know if these dating techniques were reliable.

and they did date it. as the talkorigins site explains, the results show that the dates were meaningles´s, beacaust they came in under the minimum age of the rock. Furthermore, even Austin admits that his samples were impure, and the technique is not appropriate for measuring impure rocks of that type, so again, deceit on the part of Austin.

The presumption has been that the geologic clock is set to zero when the rock becomes magna. There is no real basis for this except they have managed to date the rates of decay and extrapolate from there.

irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that Austin was deceitful in sending a sample to a lab that was far younger than the minimum age measurable by the lab. What Austin et al was analogous to asking a man with a mechanical stopwatch to measure the length of a thunderbolt and then claim that the stopwatch is no good for measuring the time it takes a man to run a kilometer.

Whether K-Ar dating is a good method of telling the age of a rock is irrelevant to the matter. Austin was deceitful, and his results are meaningless, which is what the talkorigins post intends to show.

Mistermystery · Dec 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
The Talk Origins discussion doesn't bother to offer any positive evidence that they are right just rationalizes that creationists are wrong, notice they never tell us why this dating technique is reliable.

They did prove however that the claim was wrong, and Jane Austin was acting very dishonest.

Jet Black · Dec 6, 2004

Steve Austin, not Jane. Jane Austen was an author, and I don't think she would stoop to such levels of dishonesty.

Mistermystery · Dec 6, 2004

Jet Black said:
Steve Austin, not Jane. Jane Austen was an author, and I don't think she would stoop to such levels of dishonesty.

You're right. You evo-scum.

LifeToTheFullest! · Dec 6, 2004

Dude, where's my car?

Ron21647 · Dec 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
The Talk Origins discussion doesn't bother to offer any positive evidence that they are right just rationalizes that creationists are wrong, notice they never tell us why this dating technique is reliable. What the lab was told was that the samples came from dacite and that they should have low argon, that would all they would need to know if these dating techniques were reliable. The presumption has been that the geologic clock is set to zero when the rock becomes magna. There is no real basis for this except they have managed to date the rates of decay and extrapolate from there.

The article also discusses how the same techniques are applied to other areas and the they are allways wrong.

"However, volcanoes of much more recent origin exist on Grand Canyon's north rim. Geologists agree that these volcanoes erupted only thousands of years ago, spilling lava into an already eroded Grand Canyon, even temporarily damming the Colorado River. Rocks from these lava flows have been dated by the same rubidium-strontium isochron method used to date the Cardenas Basalt, giving an "age" of 1.34 billion years.4 This result indicates that the top of the canyon is actually older than the bottom! Such an obviously incorrect and ridiculous "age" speaks eloquently of the great problems inherent in radioisotope dating. "

(cited and linked above)

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

mark kennedy · Dec 6, 2004

Ron21647 said:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr20_01.htm

Jet Black · Dec 6, 2004

why dod you post that mark? again, they are using K-Ar dating to date something far too young. notice both of those things are lava flow. coincidence?

mark kennedy · Dec 6, 2004

Jet Black said:
that doesn't matter. Your claim is wrong, Austin was dishonest, and the article shows that. you can contact Geochron labs yourself if you like.

No he wasn't he tested to the dacite produced empirical results that proved that the dating of geologic strata is bogus and he compared it to other tests that got the same results.

and they did date it. as the talkorigins site explains, the results show that the dates were meaningles´s, beacaust they came in under the minimum age of the rock. Furthermore, even Austin admits that his samples were impure, and the technique is not appropriate for measuring impure rocks of that type, so again, deceit on the part of Austin.

Of course anyone who does not agree that the earth is billions of years is dishonest, that particular rationalization invokes emotional bias not objective thinking.

irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that Austin was deceitful in sending a sample to a lab that was far younger than the minimum age measurable by the lab. What Austin et al was analogous to asking a man with a mechanical stopwatch to measure the length of a thunderbolt and then claim that the stopwatch is no good for measuring the time it takes a man to run a kilometer.

One facet of gradualism is simply indefensible, that the geologic clock is set back to zero when it is reduced to magna. The absolute dating is based on rates of decay that simply do not support gradualism and the implications for evolutionary gradualism are legion.

Whether K-Ar dating is a good method of telling the age of a rock is irrelevant to the matter. Austin was deceitful, and his results are meaningless, which is what the talkorigins post intends to show.

Nonsense, these dating techniques are unreliable and he proved it empirically.

Ron21647 · Dec 6, 2004

mark kennedy said:
http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr20_01.htm

Ok, I've read your article. It says you have to know what you are doing before you can get an accurate date using K-Ar dating. In particular, the rock has to be hot enough to boil out the previous argon, and that argon must have a way to escape and not accumulate in a cooler portion of the lava.

There are other methods of dating that do not depend on a gas.

Have you read the article I posted?

Ron

Any evolutionists want to debate?

Jet Black

Guest

crazy dancing santa mage

Here's looking at you kid

Here's looking at you kid

Here's looking at you kid

Senior Veteran

Jet Black

Guest

Natura non facit saltum

Jet Black

Guest

Natura non facit saltum

Jet Black

Guest

Here's looking at you kid

Jet Black

Guest

Here's looking at you kid

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Natura non facit saltum

Jet Black

Guest

Natura non facit saltum

Regular Member

Similar threads