Deep Time

[joshua 1 9]

It's Rick's topic.

The discussion IS based on his posts. Specifically the first one. That's how threads work.

Rick and I have had this discussion many, many times. But if you want to do it again then fine. Lets do it all over again. Deep time is a term coined by Scottish Geologiest James Hutten. Charles Lyell developed this into the theory of uniformitarianism. His good friend Darwin then developed it into his theory of gradualism to cover biological change as opposed to geological changes. At the time the opposing theory was Catastrophism. Then about 100 years later Harvard professor Gould came along and teamed up with Eldredge with the theory of Punctuated equilibrium. Eldredge carried on the discussion, Gould is no longer with us.

In all fairness the fossils are a part of geology. So it is understandable that uniformity and gradualism are so much connected with each other. Yet now in our time we are dealing the rapid change that is not exactly the same as Catastrophism but they are both dealing with a lot of change over a short period of time as compared to a long period of time.

 

[RickG]

Rick and I have had this discussion many, many times. But if you want to do it again then fine. Lets do it all over again. Deep time is a term coined by Scottish Geologiest James Hutten. Charles Lyell developed this into the theory of uniformitarianism. His good friend Darwin then developed it into his theory of gradualism to cover biological change as opposed to geological changes. At the time the opposing theory was Catastrophism. Then about 100 years later Harvard professor Gould came along and teamed up with Eldredge with the theory of Punctuated equilibrium. Eldredge carried on the discussion, Gould is no longer with us.

In all fairness the fossils are a part of geology. So it is understandable that uniformity and gradualism are so much connected with each other. Yet now in our time we are dealing the rapid change that is not exactly the same as Catastrophism but they are both dealing with a lot of change over a short period of time as compared to a long period of time.

Joshua, the OP specifically asks about DATING METHODS. Do you have anything to contribute to the topic, not your interpretation of the threads title, specifically about DATING METHODS?

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you would like to start a thread on radiometric dating. This is a tread about "deep time".

Deep time is measured by radiometric dating.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, the OP specifically asks about DATING METHODS.

Then the very first post is off topic because the title is deep time. Can you try to stay on topic? The first post seems to have nothing to do with the title of the thread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

About as many times as I have to explain to you that the discussion is based on the title of the thread and not your opinions and your posts.

The discussion is based on the OP and the parameters set in the OP. The title is just that: a title.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then the very first post is off topic because the title is deep time. Can you try to stay on topic? The first post seems to have nothing to do with the title of the thread.

You? Telling Rick to stay on topic?

 

[crjmurray]

Hilarious.

 

[RickG]

Then the very first post is off topic because the title is deep time. Can you try to stay on topic? The first post seems to have nothing to do with the title of the thread.

So, you are saying the OP is off topic?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you are saying the OP is off topic?

I do believe he is.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you are saying the OP is off topic?

Your OP was [conveniently] poorly written.

If you want to look at what mainstream creationist scientist literature has to say about deep ti... er ... dating me... um ... I mean geologic dating methods, Google it yourself like I did.

However, if you want us to do it and then comment on it so you can assert your science over our comments, like you did me, that's your prerogative as well.

 

[RickG]

Your OP was [conveniently] poorly written.

If you want to look at what mainstream creationist scientist literature has to say about deep ti... er ... dating me... um ... I mean geologic dating methods, Google it yourself like I did.

So you are saying creating a topic in the Physical and Life Sciences forum of the CF, pointing out that there are two different opinions concerning geological deep time, i.e. dating methods, is poorly written, and instead of asking for forum members to discuss it I should just Google it.

However, if you want us to do it and then comment on it so you can assert your science over our comments, like you did me, that's your prerogative as well.

You mean like in post #57 where I quoted the OP in a response to your post?

"Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.

Please observe the OP."
​

​

 

[klutedavid]

Deep time is measured by radiometric dating.

Hello Loudmouth.

Is there any way of determining the validity of the assumptions that the belief
in radiometric dating is based on?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean like in post #57

I mean like in post #120.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So, you are saying the OP is off topic?

Yes of course it is, the first post does not match the title of the thread. The thread is about deep time not radiometric dating. In fact MODERN radiomatric dating began around 1950 a full one hundred years after the term Deep Time was first used. So your off by just about 100 years.

 

[lesliedellow]

If I were you, I would start another thread, and threaten capital punishment for anybody who doesn't stay on topic.

Not that I would be taking any part in it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You? Telling Rick to stay on topic?

People are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

People are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

So you admit that it's incredibly ironic that you, a person who very often posts off-topic posts on a thread, called Rick's OP off-topic?

 

[RickG]

Yes of course it is, the first post does not match the title of the thread. The thread is about deep time not radiometric dating. In fact MODERN radiomatric dating began around 1950 a full one hundred years after the term Deep Time was first used. So your off by just about 100 years.

From post #38: "Just a heads up for everyone. This thread is open to any scientific dating method, rather radiometric, non-radiometric, absolute or relative."

As for radiometric dating, it had its introduction as early as 1907; Bertram Boltwood 1907, "On the Ultimate Disintegration Products of the Radio-active Elements. Part II. The Disintegration Products of Uranium", American Journal of Science.

Here's a link: http://www.ajsonline.org/content/s4-23/134/78.extract

And once again. The thread title is Deep Time. The OP specifically states looking at dating methods. I understand your confusion about deep time as you are perceiving it from a layman's point of view, rather than that of a professional. Do you have a contribution, question or concern with any dating method, radiometric or non-radiometric, in which deep time is determined?

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you admit that it's incredibly ironic that you, a person who very often posts off-topic posts on a thread, called Rick's OP off-topic?

I think that it is ironic that you are off topic and accusing me of being off topic. Here we have over 200 posts and not one of them about radiometric dating. Do you have something to contribute or not?

 

[crjmurray]

I think that it is ironic that you are off topic and accusing me of being off topic. Here we have over 200 posts and not one of them about radiometric dating. Do you have something to contribute or not?

You realize that YOU didn't start this thread, right?