Debunked, lol.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
You make a mistake about the burden of proof, Tolkien R.R.J.You make a mistake....
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.
KomatiiteBIF explained how a "...many were folded while still wet." claim was completely wrong.
Now it is your turn.
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 gave you the links, you simply refuse to learn.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.
8 Augist 2018 Justatruthseeker: A set of "hack" insults and lies rather than addressing the linked science.He sends me to a internet link page, which as it's source uses another internet hack website, by hack journalists, no less.
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.
8 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "Fold rocks in the laboratory without fracturing them" lie by citing a high school demonstration.I'll tell you what, settle the issue.
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).
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
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.......
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).
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
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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!
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:
- 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.
- The Greenland ice cores are taken in the different conditions of the Greenland interior.
- 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.
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.
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:
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.
- All of recorded history shows that summer happens once a year.
- Summer causes dust to be deposited in snow.
- Those dust layers show up as dark layers in ice cores.
That means that summer happened on average 66 times a year. But then we have recorded history - 400 summers a year?
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.
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
RC is all false assumptions. Uniformity being the top of the list. As my post above clearly shows with simple snowfall rates....
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?