napajohn said:
You know, john, my name is
not Mike for the second time.
i've debated evolutionists for a long time now and often they resort to this strawman argument that because I don't accept this or that I refuse to learn..that my faith prevents me from seeing this?
It's not a strawman argument. Again you are projecting this onto me. It's a fact. If you are going to continue to insist that evolution suggests a "whales into cows" transformation, then you have obviously either a refusal to learn about what the theory actually postulates or you are willingly promoting falsehoods about the theory. If you are going to use arguments (some of them appear below) that we have already refuted previously on this forum then you are obviously either deliberately ignoring what we write and willingly promoting falsehoods or you simply refuse to learn.
And now you start to go off topic to try to save yourself...while ignoring my previous post completely, which gives a link to a previous response of mine to you that already invalidates the things you write below. You simply must not read anything we right and are content to continually promote the same falsehoods over and over and over again.
You know evolution requires a lot of assumptions..the basis for the old earth concept is validated by radiometric dating that has assumptions
The old earth concept was realized before radioactivity was even discovered, so trying to poke holes in radiometric dating doesn't make the evidence suddenly turn into evidence for a 6,000 year old earth. Furthermore, the age of the earth and the theory of evolution are independently determined. The age of the earth isn't arbitrarily defined as old just to make the theory of evolution work. You are trying to make it sound like some sort of mass conspiracy that isn't actually there.
a study by Joly showed he may have adjusted the rate of uranium decay
A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107
1931?!? You're going to have to do better than that. The field of geochronology has improved very substantially in the past 70 years. Considering you haven't given me any information from the paper either, I have no way to evaluate this claim.
*H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2).
And here again no information from the paper to evaluate. It seems like you've just copied and pasted miscellaneous references from some creationist website as if it actually means something.
yet we still get deviations from the so called dating methods
heres some:
"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years
That's becausee the K-Ar dating method is used improperly in two ways. First, you cannot date samples so young using this method for reasons I've already explained to you (and then linked to again in my previous post, which you ignored for the second time). Second, the samples invovled in this study contained xenoliths, which are older inclusions. Obviously the older inclusions will provide a source for excess radiogenic argon that would give an older date
"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years. In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, "Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].
Excess argon already addressed.
"Even the [1980] lava dome of Mount St. Helens has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M Morris, Radiometric Dating," Back to Genesis, 1997]."James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146
Excess argon already addressed. Also, use of the method is improper. Claiming that a method gives anomalous results after using the method outside of its known limitations does not in any way make any implications on the accuracy and precision of the method when it's actually used properly by honest scientists.
yet we have also known rates that can be measured today:
salinity of the ocean,
This is false because Morris incorrectly uses the term "residence time." He interprets residence time to mean the time it takes for a material to accumulate into the oceans, but in reality, it means the average amount of time a dissolved material stays in a reservoir before removal. Morris misrepresents what a residence time is and then subsequently states that it is equivalent to the age of the earth. It's just flat out dishonest.
It's also worth mentioning that biological organisms contribute to the changes in oceanic geochemistry, including humans who remove salt from the ocean as well. Additionally, there are thick salt deposits, carbonate deposits, and gypsum deposits on the continents. Apparently sodium, carbonates, and dissolved sulfate have been removed from the oceans in the past by natural processes. Morris also conveniently ignores those facts.
oil pressure dissipation,
This is simply not true either given that oil migrates and takes time to accumulate. Those pressures dissipate upon migration, and pressure also dissipates due to tectonic shifts changing the sedimentary geology in the area causing leakage and further migration of oil reservoirs. Of course if the trap rock for the reservoir is somewhat permeable and if the reserve migrates laterally in a porous rock, pressure is bound to escape. However using this argument still requires that the earth is greater than 6-12 thousand years, so you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot with this one.
coral reef formation that suggest the earth is MUCH MUCH younger than believed
This is an incredibly vague claim. Given that fossilized coral have been found in shallow sea sediments and on continents and given that coral development is often fluctuating for numerous reasons it seems poor at best. The oldest coral reef may only be a few thousand years old as well, but that certainly has no bearing on the age of the earth. That's like using the age of Niagra falls to assume the age of the earth.
There are simply too many features on earth that require large amounts of time to form that the earth cannot be young.
As Baumgardner says:
"So which physical process is more trustworthy -- the diffusion of a noble gas in a crystalline lattice or the radioactive decay of an unstable isotope? Both processes can be investigated today in great detail in the laboratory. Both the rate of helium diffusion in a given crystalline lattice and the rate decay of uranium to lead can be determined with high degrees of precision. But these two physical processes yield wildly disparate estimates for the age of the same granite rock. Where is the logical or procedural error? The most reasonable conclusion in my view is that it lies in the step of extrapolating as constant presently measured rates of nuclear decay into the remote past. If this is the error, then radiometric methods based on presently measured rates simply do not and cannot provide correct estimates for geologic age."
If Baumgardner (you know, the hypocrite who publishes papers dealing with time scales of millions of years) were actually correct, then there are two things that simply would be impossible to occur:
1. We can predict radiometric dates from observing known rates of plate tectonic processes. An excellent example are the Hawaiian Islands. The rate of motion (dx/dt) and the distance between the islands using a basic calculation can give us the age of the islands. When K-Ar dating is used on the basalts on those islands, those radiometric ages match up with what we predict.
I have already done some basic calculations and compared them with dates of the basalts:
http://www.christianforums.com/t50891
This type of prediction should be
impossible if radiometric dating were so fatally flawed. That's falsification #1.
2. We can cross-reference results from dating the same features using different nuclide systems. Each parent nuclide decays at a different rate, so that's important to keep in mind. Radiometric ages were determined for features that matched very well using a variety of different methods:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Again, this type of correllation should be
impossible is radiometric dating were so fatally flawed. That's falsification #2.
P.S. Why do you never use the quotation feature or try to clear up your posts to make them look readable? It would probably help if you did, and I think others here would agree.
kind of neat that. it's actually on the earth where we can see it is round... just imagine you are a 1st century sailor.. and on the horizon, you saw a mast appear... a few minutes later the yardarm, then the ship and so forth 
