In many ways, as I pointed out, science admits not knowing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In many ways, as I pointed out, science admits not knowing.The topic of this thread is geological dating techniques. You also brought up the subject trying to imply that plate tectonics was not understood.
Sadly you just can't admit that you are wrong.
How do you know there was no rapid subduction?We can also "see" slow rates of subduction in the past. There has never been the rapid subduction of the hydroplate theory of Brown.
No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past.
I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth.
The evidence says man was here more than twice the time you have believed. That evidence is not in the form of fossils. Dad pointed out that there was no fossils for man in the days of Noah. The evidence I see in recent news is footprints!
"Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Your story was wrong. Now if you could actually go deep down and observe how things actually are and actually work under the earth, I have no doubt that your stories would be blown to kingdom come there as well. Science preys on ignorance.
Ridge push and slab pull? Well, how fast was the push or pull? Addressing some issues vaguely many posts back, followed by some childish charges and vague accusations later is hardly really addressing the issues.I've addressed the OP in an earlier post.
And no, it isn't that you reject something from geology, it's your use of language that tells me you don't know what you're talking about.
How do you know there was no rapid subduction?
Then he is in good company, because your are.dad's claims are just made up fantasies. He has no evidence for those clai
Now you are stepping on my toes.We can directly measure time outside the bubble of the Earth in the field of astronomy.
Maybe apes in costume?Nowhere does it say modern humans made those footprints.
Changing ratios over thousands of years or hundreds, or weeks, or whatever, do not mean slow movement! The issue is how ratios changed, and how fast.
No doubt it tells you things. I think dad pointed out here for years that the present is not actually the key to the past. I have pointed out even longer than that, how time possibly does not exist beyond the bubble of earth. I really don't want to argue about it. I do not accept beliefs about the unknown that you offer.
Did you even understand that link? It does not say that man existed 5.7 million years ago. It says that those prints were made by hominims. Hominims include species like Australopithecus afarensis. It only means that our ancestors were not confined to Africa. It helps if you read and understand the articles that you post. This article may clear up your confusion:The evidence says man was here more than twice the time you have believed. That evidence is not in the form of fossils. Dad pointed out that there was no fossils for man in the days of Noah. The evidence I see in recent news is footprints!
"Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution
The footprints are approximately 5.7 million years old and were made at a time when previous research puts our ancestors in Africa -- with ape-like feet."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm
Your story was wrong. Now if you could actually go deep down and observe how things actually are and actually work under the earth, I have no doubt that your stories would be blown to kingdom come there as well. Science preys on ignorance.
Ratios on a graph is not evidence for slow subduction is it?I have provided evidence.
Changing ratios over thousands of years or hundreds, or weeks, or whatever, do not mean slow movement!
The issue is how ratios changed, and how fast.
Actually it is. You obviously do not understand the nature of evidence. Most creationists don't.Ratios on a graph is not evidence for slow subduction is it?
The fact that you are asking about how "fast" these processes occur means that you've not studied the rates of plate motion.Ridge push and slab pull? Well, how fast was the push or pull? Addressing some issues vaguely many posts back, followed by some childish charges and vague accusations later is hardly really addressing the issues.
Name something made up?dad simply makes up things to support his own false interpretation of Genesis.
Did you miss this in the article?Did you even understand that link? It does not say that man existed 5.7 million years ago. It says that those prints were made by hominims. Hominims include species like Australopithecus afarensis. It only means that our ancestors were not confined to Africa. It helps if you read and understand the articles that you post. This article may clear up your confusion:
Hominini - Wikipedia
Early man may have had differences like that. Trying to invoke some ancient anscestor to man is a made up story.
Yes, I saw that. So what? Have you seen the feet of Australopithecus?Name something made up?
Did you miss this in the article?
"Human feet have a very distinctive shape, different from all other land animals. The combination of a long sole, five short forward-pointing toes without claws, and a hallux ("big toe") that is larger than the other toes, is unique. The feet of our closest relatives, the great apes, look more like a human hand with a thumb-like hallux that sticks out to the side. The Laetoli footprints, thought to have been made by Australopithecus, are quite similar to those of modern humans except that the heel is narrower and the sole lacks a proper arch"
Early man may have had differences like that. Trying to invoke some ancient anscestor to man is a made up story.
In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.
After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.
Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?
You have what to say about it? One technique is drift and things like rates of subduction, is it not?The topic of this thread is geological dating techniques. .
The cause of seduction was a catastrophic event. After the dinosaurs began to devour each other. The story of Noah and his flood was a shadow & type of the event that took place at Pangaea.How do you know there was no rapid subduction?
Why does it show any rate of movement? Rather it shows changes in isotope ratios, does it not?Why doesn't that graph evidence slow movement of the Pacific plate
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?