Debunking Pangaea/Continental Drift Theory.

[Commander]

1. This is an open forum where all participants can comment and respond to any post whether directed to them or not.

2. Commander, how would you perceive someone who walked into your place of employment (profession) and begin telling you things that you know form your education and experience that are just made up and completely wrong, and suggests that "you" didn't have any idea what you are talking about; also knowing that this person has absolutely no understanding of what they are talking about, much less training and/or experience.

Get the idea?

Rick, I was asking you only, and did not need someone else answering the question that was proposed to you. How is it that you think I know nothing about science? Is it that I debunk everything that science claims? I do have my own mind and make intelligent interpretations from the information that is provided. I am not blind to the schemes that are portrayed by evolutionary scientist, for I know that rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them! I also know that scientist have tried to pull the wool over many peoples eyes with the lies/hoaxes/forgeries that they have invented over the years. Do I need to list them?

 

[RickG]

How is it that you think I know nothing about science?

Not science, Earth Science. What you need to do is review the scenario I provided you and think about it very deeply. Very very deeply.

I am not blind to the schemes that are portrayed by evolutionary scientist,

The discussion in this thread has nothing to do with evolution.

for I know that rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them!

And you ask why I question the information you present? Seriously?

I also know that scientist have tried to pull the wool over many peoples eyes with the lies/hoaxes/forgeries that they have invented over the years.

Do I need to list them?

Yes, you do, list them. Because in looking at each of them we will find that it was Mainstream Science that discovered, exposed and corrected the misdeeds.

 

[Commander]

Not science, Earth Science. What you need to do is review the scenario I provided you and think about it very deeply. Very very deeply.


The discussion in this thread has nothing to do with evolution.


And you ask why I question the information you present? Seriously?


Yes, you do, list them. Because in looking at each of them we will find that it was Mainstream Science that discovered, exposed and corrected the misdeeds.

Hey Rick, I looked up geology hoaxes and found about 238,000 results from google! I never knew there were so many hoaxes until you challenged me to list them. I was just going to list a few, but I am up to a good challenge. Here are just a few, be warned though that wikipedia has many pages from every discipline of science including geology! And we know that wikipedia is not a creationist site many of the others listed are not either.
Hoaxes- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science http://www.businessinsider.com/bigg...16-9/#johann-beringers-lying-stones-in-1725-1 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-c...ific-hoaxes/wont-get-fooled-again#top-desktop http://hoaxes.org/archive/categories http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/23/us/scientist-accused-of-faking-findings.html http://greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.com/2013/11/young-earth-creationism-and-convergent.html http://www-connexe.univ-brest.fr/geosciences/sedpal/pdf/064-granier-citation_001.pdf https://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.php http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1449156071 http://www.abebooks.com/Geological-Ages-Hoax-Plea-Logic-Theoretical-Geology/14102992284/bd https://iceagenow.info/global-warming-is-fake-claims-top-geologist-2/ http://whale.to/c/moon_landing_hoax_assassinations.html http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/06/dialogue-hoax-of-geology-part-2.html http://discoverynews.us/DISCOVERIES/CREATION/12_Fossils_and_Strata.html http://www.robertschoch.com/bosniacontent.html
Truth will set you free, brother. There is too much overwhelming evidence that science is nothing but a fraud concocted to further the theory of evolution! You can still claim to be a part of it, or you can realize that it is the lie that it is! Have a blessed day, brother.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey Rick, I looked up geology hoaxes and found about 238,000 results from google! I never knew there were so many hoaxes until you challenged me to list them. I was just going to list a few, but I am up to a good challenge. Here are just a few, be warned though that wikipedia has many pages from every discipline of science including geology! And we know that wikipedia is not a creationist site many of the others listed are not either.
Hoaxes- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science http://www.businessinsider.com/bigg...16-9/#johann-beringers-lying-stones-in-1725-1 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-c...ific-hoaxes/wont-get-fooled-again#top-desktop http://hoaxes.org/archive/categories http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/23/us/scientist-accused-of-faking-findings.html http://greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.com/2013/11/young-earth-creationism-and-convergent.html http://www-connexe.univ-brest.fr/geosciences/sedpal/pdf/064-granier-citation_001.pdf https://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.php http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1449156071 http://www.abebooks.com/Geological-Ages-Hoax-Plea-Logic-Theoretical-Geology/14102992284/bd https://iceagenow.info/global-warming-is-fake-claims-top-geologist-2/ http://whale.to/c/moon_landing_hoax_assassinations.html http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/06/dialogue-hoax-of-geology-part-2.html http://discoverynews.us/DISCOVERIES/CREATION/12_Fossils_and_Strata.html http://www.robertschoch.com/bosniacontent.html
Truth will set you free, brother. There is too much overwhelming evidence that science is nothing but a fraud concocted to further the theory of evolution! You can still claim to be a part of it, or you can realize that it is the lie that it is! Have a blessed day, brother.

And for the most part, the hoaxes were not perpetrated by scientists, but were unmasked by them. None were exposed by creation "scientists."

 

[RickG]

Hey Rick, I looked up geology hoaxes and found about 238,000 results from google! I never knew there were so many hoaxes until you challenged me to list them. I was just going to list a few, but I am up to a good challenge. Here are just a few, be warned though that wikipedia has many pages from every discipline of science including geology! And we know that wikipedia is not a creationist site many of the others listed are not either.
Hoaxes- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes_in_science http://www.businessinsider.com/bigg...16-9/#johann-beringers-lying-stones-in-1725-1 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15012-eleven-of-the-greatest-scientific-hoaxes/ http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-c...ific-hoaxes/wont-get-fooled-again#top-desktop http://hoaxes.org/archive/categories http://www.nytimes.com/1989/04/23/us/scientist-accused-of-faking-findings.html http://greatesthoaxonearth.blogspot.com/2013/11/young-earth-creationism-and-convergent.html http://www-connexe.univ-brest.fr/geosciences/sedpal/pdf/064-granier-citation_001.pdf https://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.php http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1449156071 http://www.abebooks.com/Geological-Ages-Hoax-Plea-Logic-Theoretical-Geology/14102992284/bd https://iceagenow.info/global-warming-is-fake-claims-top-geologist-2/ http://whale.to/c/moon_landing_hoax_assassinations.html http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/06/dialogue-hoax-of-geology-part-2.html http://discoverynews.us/DISCOVERIES/CREATION/12_Fossils_and_Strata.html http://www.robertschoch.com/bosniacontent.html
Truth will set you free, brother. There is too much overwhelming evidence that science is nothing but a fraud concocted to further the theory of evolution! You can still claim to be a part of it, or you can realize that it is the lie that it is! Have a blessed day, brother.

As pointed out previously and Speedwell said: "And for the most part, the hoaxes were not perpetrated by scientists, but were unmasked by them. None were exposed by creation "scientists."

Conversely, when reviewing the creation science literature, we find a plethora of misrepresented science.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Ken, I suggest you might consider more information than just Pangaea to focus on. There were super-continents prior and post Pangaea as well. Here is a list of the known ones and their timelines.

Gondwana (~510–~180 million years ago)
Laurasia (~510–~200 million years ago)
Pangaea (~300–~210 million years ago)
Pannotia, also called Vendian (~600–~545 million years ago)
Rodinia (~1.1 Ga–~750 million years ago)
Columbia, also called Nuna (~1.8–1.5 Ga ago)
Kenorland (~2.7 Ga ago)
Ur (~3 Ga ago)
Vaalbara (~3.6 Ga ago)


I would suggest perhaps a large unknown landmass but not the geologically known super-continent of Pangaea.

Obviously, any such distinction would vanish in the translations. And the ancients had their own way of arguing how old the earth was, including some various degrees of heaven/earth mixtures. Can you provide any ancient writings that witness to two or more landmasses (on earth, not one halfway to heaven) at various points in history? The only thing I know of is Gen. 10:25 and the phrase from the Babylonian flood story "land shattered like a pot", but this supports only one.

 

[RickG]

Obviously, any such distinction would vanish in the translations. And the ancients had their own way of arguing how old the earth was, including some various degrees of heaven/earth mixtures. Can you provide any ancient writings that witness to two or more landmasses (on earth, not one halfway to heaven) at various points in history? The only thing I know of is Gen. 10:25 and the phrase from the Babylonian flood story "land shattered like a pot", but this supports only one.

As to the flood story, I look at it as originating from the 8200 event increasing the Black Sea (Lake) by more than a third very rapidly, as documented in extensive scientific research.

 

[Ken Behrens]

As to the flood story, I look at it as originating from the 8200 event increasing the Black Sea (Lake) by more than a third very rapidly, as documented in extensive scientific research.

I tend not to trust any date not supported by written evidence. There are problems with radioactive dating, and I have involved arguments that would upset virtually all the science of basic chronology (which I will summarize one below).

This is very difficult to be sure, but I have assembled a few of what I think are responsible legends of a global flood, considerably different from we believe the Bible says about Noah, but actually in agreement with the original Hebrew. Working with that assumption, I looked for those legends that seem to match the original Hebrew. I found 4 with a date, Sumerian, Hebrew, Egyptian and ancient Chinese. To within the limits I can compute, they all agree, or at least do not contradict 2nd week of June 3122BC. There is also the mathematical coincidence that Egyptian, Sumerian, and Mayan calendars all zero out on winter solstice day 3121, and resetting all world calendars woudl seem necessary only after a major catastrophe.

Here is a simple proof that there is good cause to doubt any date before the advent of writing: All methods of dating, tree ring, to pottery and stone tool layers, to radiocarbon, to any other form of radioactive dating, assume that the numbers governing atomic structure flow within time that are observed today have not changed over the millenia. But there is in fact, reason to doubt it. It is called extrapolating beyond the data base in correlation. Basically, science involves math, and the proof that certain laws do not change over the years requires the records from those years be saved and entered into a correlation equation. Already there have been errors suspected in psychiatry and social studies by assuming the equation is the correct one for all studies (linear correlation is sometimes really cubic for example, masking a singularity or catastrophe point). Even if the equation is the correct on to use, it is standard practice not to go beyond the provable data range. For example, if your data is available from 1200 AD to 2000AD, you do not assume it is true from 600AD, that is to far removed. This would never be done in any other field, but is regularly done in historical science. There is already evidence on the net that the speed of light is changing just in 500 years. This evidence is explained by science as just errors in measurement, but there is a mathematical technique to check for which explanation is more probable, and no one is doing this. Now let's just suppose that there was a massive cataclysm in 3100 BC, and as part of it, the earth's magnetic field changed significantly. Many unified field theories have been advanced that would predict major changes in radioactive absorption rates, weather, and pretty much everything else. Science says they have checked, and this is not so, but the simple fact is, that if you approach the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, you cannot tell that time is slowing down. Change the flow of time, and all the physical constants change. Without knowing more about the higher dimensional nature of the earth's energy field, there is no way to compute what has changed or by how much. In view of such a catastrophe being supported by so much possible evidence, I cannot see how science insists that the measurements have remained stable past the age of the invention of writing required for data collection.

 

[Commander]

As pointed out previously and Speedwell said: "And for the most part, the hoaxes were not perpetrated by scientists, but were unmasked by them. None were exposed by creation "scientists."

Conversely, when reviewing the creation science literature, we find a plethora of misrepresented science.

You must have not read any of them. We know that one of the biggest hoaxes of all time was perpetrated by several scientist working in collaboration together. But, you can still believe all of the lies that they feed you, and there are many! You have not shown any of the misrepresented science of the creation science literature.

 

[Commander]

And for the most part, the hoaxes were not perpetrated by scientists, but were unmasked by them. None were exposed by creation "scientists."

Apparently you did not read any of them. We know that one of the biggest hoaxes of all time was perpetrated by several scientist working in collaboration together. But, you can still believe all of the lies that they feed you, and there are many!

 

[RickG]

I tend not to trust any date not supported by written evidence. There are problems with radioactive dating, and I have involved arguments that would upset virtually all the science of basic chronology (which I will summarize one below).

This is very difficult to be sure, but I have assembled a few of what I think are responsible legends of a global flood, considerably different from we believe the Bible says about Noah, but actually in agreement with the original Hebrew. Working with that assumption, I looked for those legends that seem to match the original Hebrew. I found 4 with a date, Sumerian, Hebrew, Egyptian and ancient Chinese. To within the limits I can compute, they all agree, or at least do not contradict 2nd week of June 3122BC. There is also the mathematical coincidence that Egyptian, Sumerian, and Mayan calendars all zero out on winter solstice day 3121, and resetting all world calendars woudl seem necessary only after a major catastrophe.

Here is a simple proof that there is good cause to doubt any date before the advent of writing: All methods of dating, tree ring, to pottery and stone tool layers, to radiocarbon, to any other form of radioactive dating, assume that the numbers governing atomic structure flow within time that are observed today have not changed over the millenia. But there is in fact, reason to doubt it. It is called extrapolating beyond the data base in correlation. Basically, science involves math, and the proof that certain laws do not change over the years requires the records from those years be saved and entered into a correlation equation.

Thanks for your response I appreciate it, although I do disagree with respect to dating methods which I will explain.

I'm don't know where you obtained your information concerning dating methods, but I do suspect that doubts concerning them are usually originated by the creation science literature in which many representations of the science are misrepresented.

Now, looking at some of your concerns which I gather most importantly is that of the laws of physics and chemistry possibly changing over time. I think the way to approach that is to look at what evidence may suggest a changed physics and what evidence would show there has been no change in physics.

First: What evidence would show a different physics in the past? First we need to look at the structures of atoms. Atoms are uniquely different from one-another due to their sub-atomic structures; thus, the uniqueness of the number of electron, protons and neutrons of each element. Change them and you either get an isotope of the same atom or a completely different atom. Currently there are 118 different known elements. If we include the isotopes of all the elements, both stable and unstable, we have hundreds more.

Now, let's look at Carbon. Isotopes of a given element differ in neutron number, but all isotopes of a fiven element have the same number of protons in each atom. Let's look at Carbon for example. There are three natural isotopes of Carbon 12C & 13C are stable, while 14C is unstable. The atomic number of each of those remains 6, while the atomic mass is 12, 13 & 14 respectively. So, if that mass number changes you still have Carbon, just a different isotope of Carbon. Thus their neutrons are 6, 7 & 8 respectively.

So, if the physics had changed in the past what would have to happen? It is quite simple, they would be different elements with atoms having different neutrons and protons from anything we see today. The fact is, we don't find anything different. Looking at those which decay and are used in radiometric dating, decay of an unstable radionuclided cannot not begin until it is formed. If the physics had changed we would not be able to date any rock back any further than the time of the change. Now how far will that go back? Well, here's an example, Rubidium. Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 48.8×109 years, which is more than three times the age of the universe.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? If physics had changed in the past we would know it quite easily.​

Second: Let's look at non-ratiometric dating methods. One you mention is tree rings, dendrochronology. What do tree rings measure? Well, besides information on past climates, they also provide a timeline of those past climates. They are measured by their annual growth rings. All one has to do is count them. But wait a minute, can't there be more than one growth ring during an annual growth? Absolutely, but it is a rarity. So how do we know the difference? Multiple annual rings will possess excessively large growth cells compared to normal grown which can easily be identified with magnification. Also understand that trees used for studying past climates and dating are from temperate zones where summer and winter are quite distinguishable. Another method that yields past climate data and goes very deep in time is that of ice cores. Ice cores are not only able to yield annual rings, but seasonal rings within those annual rings. There are also numerous other non-radiometric methods as well.

Additionally multiple methods can and are cross referenced yielding the same dates. Questions?​

​

 

[RickG]

You have not shown any of the misrepresented science of the creation science literature.

Provide a link on any dating method and I will show you.

 

[Rodan6]

I was a bit surprised to find this question. The question of Pangaea was a thoughtful theory in the early 20th century, but following the discovery of plate tectonics, a tremendous amount of evidence has proved the theory conclusively. Like the question of evolution in general, these concepts are not theories any longer. While there is certainly debate about various aspects of these topics, there can be no doubt whatsoever that our world was and is on an evolutionary path.

Science denying Christians need to reconsider their rejection of God's evolutionary plan. What good is served by denying what God has done?

 

[Commander]

Provide a link on any dating method and I will show you.

Rick we know that you don't read the material that is provided to you. Now, can you provide the dating methods to show us? There are too many questions that I have asked you, and you have not responded.

 

[Commander]

I was a bit surprised to find this question. The question of Pangaea was a thoughtful theory in the early 20th century, but following the discovery of plate tectonics, a tremendous amount of evidence has proved the theory conclusively. Like the question of evolution in general, these concepts are not theories any longer. While there is certainly debate about various aspects of these topics, there can be no doubt whatsoever that our world was and is on an evolutionary path.

Science denying Christians need to reconsider their rejection of God's evolutionary plan. What good is served by denying what God has done?

You mean that God our creator could not have created Adam fully formed and then breathed the breath of life into him? Pretty hard to take a rib from Adam and create Eve if he evolved from a one celled organism, now it's it? Have a blessed day.

 

[Commander]

Thanks for your response I appreciate it, although I do disagree with respect to dating methods which I will explain.

I'm don't know where you obtained your information concerning dating methods, but I do suspect that doubts concerning them are usually originated by the creation science literature in which many representations of the science are misrepresented.

Now, looking at some of your concerns which I gather most importantly is that of the laws of physics and chemistry possibly changing over time. I think the way to approach that is to look at what evidence may suggest a changed physics and what evidence would show there has been no change in physics.

First: What evidence would show a different physics in the past? First we need to look at the structures of atoms. Atoms are uniquely different from one-another due to their sub-atomic structures; thus, the uniqueness of the number of electron, protons and neutrons of each element. Change them and you either get an isotope of the same atom or a completely different atom. Currently there are 118 different known elements. If we include the isotopes of all the elements, both stable and unstable, we have hundreds more.

Now, let's look at Carbon. Isotopes of a given element differ in neutron number, but all isotopes of a fiven element have the same number of protons in each atom. Let's look at Carbon for example. There are three natural isotopes of Carbon 12C & 13C are stable, while 14C is unstable. The atomic number of each of those remains 6, while the atomic mass is 12, 13 & 14 respectively. So, if that mass number changes you still have Carbon, just a different isotope of Carbon. Thus their neutrons are 6, 7 & 8 respectively.

So, if the physics had changed in the past what would have to happen? It is quite simple, they would be different elements with atoms having different neutrons and protons from anything we see today. The fact is, we don't find anything different. Looking at those which decay and are used in radiometric dating, decay of an unstable radionuclided cannot not begin until it is formed. If the physics had changed we would not be able to date any rock back any further than the time of the change. Now how far will that go back? Well, here's an example, Rubidium. Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 48.8×109 years, which is more than three times the age of the universe.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? If physics had changed in the past we would know it quite easily.​

Second: Let's look at non-ratiometric dating methods. One you mention is tree rings, dendrochronology. What do tree rings measure? Well, besides information on past climates, they also provide a timeline of those past climates. They are measured by their annual growth rings. All one has to do is count them. But wait a minute, can't there be more than one growth ring during an annual growth? Absolutely, but it is a rarity. So how do we know the difference? Multiple annual rings will possess excessively large growth cells compared to normal grown which can easily be identified with magnification. Also understand that trees used for studying past climates and dating are from temperate zones where summer and winter are quite distinguishable. Another method that yields past climate data and goes very deep in time is that of ice cores. Ice cores are not only able to yield annual rings, but seasonal rings within those annual rings. There are also numerous other non-radiometric methods as well.

Additionally multiple methods can and are cross referenced yielding the same dates. Questions?​

​

Thanks for your response I appreciate it, although I do disagree with respect to dating methods which I will explain.

I'm don't know where you obtained your information concerning dating methods, but I do suspect that doubts concerning them are usually originated by the creation science literature in which many representations of the science are misrepresented.

Now, looking at some of your concerns which I gather most importantly is that of the laws of physics and chemistry possibly changing over time. I think the way to approach that is to look at what evidence may suggest a changed physics and what evidence would show there has been no change in physics.

First: What evidence would show a different physics in the past? First we need to look at the structures of atoms. Atoms are uniquely different from one-another due to their sub-atomic structures; thus, the uniqueness of the number of electron, protons and neutrons of each element. Change them and you either get an isotope of the same atom or a completely different atom. Currently there are 118 different known elements. If we include the isotopes of all the elements, both stable and unstable, we have hundreds more.

Now, let's look at Carbon. Isotopes of a given element differ in neutron number, but all isotopes of a fiven element have the same number of protons in each atom. Let's look at Carbon for example. There are three natural isotopes of Carbon 12C & 13C are stable, while 14C is unstable. The atomic number of each of those remains 6, while the atomic mass is 12, 13 & 14 respectively. So, if that mass number changes you still have Carbon, just a different isotope of Carbon. Thus their neutrons are 6, 7 & 8 respectively.

So, if the physics had changed in the past what would have to happen? It is quite simple, they would be different elements with atoms having different neutrons and protons from anything we see today. The fact is, we don't find anything different. Looking at those which decay and are used in radiometric dating, decay of an unstable radionuclided cannot not begin until it is formed. If the physics had changed we would not be able to date any rock back any further than the time of the change. Now how far will that go back? Well, here's an example, Rubidium. Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 48.8×109 years, which is more than three times the age of the universe.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? If physics had changed in the past we would know it quite easily.​

Second: Let's look at non-ratiometric dating methods. One you mention is tree rings, dendrochronology. What do tree rings measure? Well, besides information on past climates, they also provide a timeline of those past climates. They are measured by their annual growth rings. All one has to do is count them. But wait a minute, can't there be more than one growth ring during an annual growth? Absolutely, but it is a rarity. So how do we know the difference? Multiple annual rings will possess excessively large growth cells compared to normal grown which can easily be identified with magnification. Also understand that trees used for studying past climates and dating are from temperate zones where summer and winter are quite distinguishable. Another method that yields past climate data and goes very deep in time is that of ice cores. Ice cores are not only able to yield annual rings, but seasonal rings within those annual rings. There are also numerous other non-radiometric methods as well.

Additionally multiple methods can and are cross referenced yielding the same dates. Questions?​

​

Carbon dating problems: For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard.: https://carm.org/carbon-dating

Radoimetric dating problems: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Problems with Dendrochronology: And even after our best analyses, we can only make our best ‘guess’ of what those signals are. This acknowledgment of uncertainty ought not be viewed negatively, because this is the way science works.:
http://www.academia.edu/1906327/Uncertainty_emergence_and_statistics_in_dendrochronology http://www.academia.edu/14282829/Recent_Problems_with_Dendrochronology
Now, any questions that there are not problems with any scientific dating methods. I can also provide more links!

 

[RickG]

Rick we know that you don't read the material that is provided to you.

I asked you to provide a link and we would discuss it. The offer is still open.

Now, can you provide the dating methods to show us? There are too many questions that I have asked you, and you have not responded.

Oh I know a few:

Radiocarbon - Beta counting
Radiocarbon - AMS
Argon-Isotope - Potassium-Argon
Argon-Isotope - Argon-Argon - conventional or SLCF - Isochron technique
Uranium 238 Series (Alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry / Isochron technique
Uranium 235 Series (alpha particle spectromerty or mass spectrometry / Isochron techique
Thorium 232 Series (alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry isochron technique
Cosmogenic nuclide dating (CN) spallation

He3, Ne21, Be10, Al26, Cl36, C14​

Short-lived isotophes Pb210, Cs137, Si32
Optical dating - Thermoluminescence & Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Trapped Charge & Fission tracking
SAR & IRSL​

Electron Spin Resonanced (ESR)
Fission Tracking - population method & external dector method
Dendrochronology
Ice Core Chronology - O16/O18 isotope ratios, conductivity, acidity
Speleothems
Annual rings - corrals & molluscs
Cation-ratio
Obsidian hydration
Obsidian diffusion
Fluorine profiles
Amino Acid Geochronology
Tephrochronology
Paleosols
Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI)
Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA) 81Kr and 85Kr
ATTA Argon Detection Isotopic Abundance Level
ATTA Uranium - Throium series (U, Th, Pa, Ra and Rn).
ATTA 85Kr and 39Ar

And there are more, which one would you like to discuss?

 

[Rodan6]

You mean that God our creator could not have created Adam fully formed and then breathed the breath of life into him? Pretty hard to take a rib from Adam and create Eve if he evolved from a one celled organism, now it's it? Have a blessed day.

The pursuit of truth requires us to search wherever we can find it. Overwhelming evidence has demonstrated that life has evolved. Is it reasonable to expect that the priests putting the oral histories together about 500 BC could have understood the concept of evolution? God reveals things to us when we are ready to receive them. Just as it would not make sense for us to teach advanced science to our 3 month old infant, God will not reveal things to us that we are not ready for.

God desires that we seek the truth--this is a key requirement in our spiritual pursuit of our loving Father in Heaven. God IS Truth, and as we seek it, we seek Him. As we find and understand the nature and details of His plan for us and our world, more things will be revealed to us. As it is written, "seek, and ye shall find". And, "to those who have, more shall be given". When we reject truths in front of our noses, we also reject our Lord's work and plan.

 

[Commander]

I asked you to provide a link and we would discuss it. The offer is still open.



Oh I know a few:

Radiocarbon - Beta counting
Radiocarbon - AMS
Argon-Isotope - Potassium-Argon
Argon-Isotope - Argon-Argon - conventional or SLCF - Isochron technique
Uranium 238 Series (Alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry / Isochron technique
Uranium 235 Series (alpha particle spectromerty or mass spectrometry / Isochron techique
Thorium 232 Series (alpha particle spectrometry or mass spectrometry isochron technique
Cosmogenic nuclide dating (CN) spallation

He3, Ne21, Be10, Al26, Cl36, C14​

Short-lived isotophes Pb210, Cs137, Si32
Optical dating - Thermoluminescence & Optically Stimulated Luminescence

Trapped Charge & Fission tracking
SAR & IRSL​

Electron Spin Resonanced (ESR)
Fission Tracking - population method & external dector method
Dendrochronology
Ice Core Chronology - O16/O18 isotope ratios, conductivity, acidity
Speleothems
Annual rings - corrals & molluscs
Cation-ratio
Obsidian hydration
Obsidian diffusion
Fluorine profiles
Amino Acid Geochronology
Tephrochronology
Paleosols
Marine Oxygen Isotopes (MOI)
Atomic Trap Trace Analysis (ATTA) 81Kr and 85Kr
ATTA Argon Detection Isotopic Abundance Level
ATTA Uranium - Throium series (U, Th, Pa, Ra and Rn).
ATTA 85Kr and 39Ar

And there are more, which one would you like to discuss?

Like I stated you do not read the information that is provided to you, or do you just ignore it?

 

[Commander]

The pursuit of truth requires us to search wherever we can find it. Overwhelming evidence has demonstrated that life has evolved. Is it reasonable to expect that the priests putting the oral histories together about 500 BC could have understood the concept of evolution? God reveals things to us when we are ready to receive them. Just as it would not make sense for us to teach advanced science to our 3 month old infant, God will not reveal things to us that we are not ready for.

God desires that we seek the truth--this is a key requirement in our spiritual pursuit of our loving Father in Heaven. God IS Truth, and as we seek it, we seek Him. As we find and understand the nature and details of His plan for us and our world, more things will be revealed to us. As it is written, "seek, and ye shall find". And, "to those who have, more shall be given". When we reject truths in front of our noses, we also reject our Lord's work and plan.

Yeah, we evolved from a zygote(a single celled organism). It is when the human male sperm fertilizes the human female egg, and it starts dividing(evolving) into a baby human being(fetus). Not from a monkey or ape.