Is this rock, evidence?

[EternalDragon]

No, I was wondering why you were comparing yourself to Jesus.

Again, that seems to be rather blasphemous to me.

I'm not comparing myself to anyone. I've not done so.

 

[EternalDragon]

Of course you don't think it strange because you know that the whole idea is ludicrous, we all laugh at foolish things,
you don't think it's foolish because of the way you have been schooled into thinking it's not,
you have not been schooled to think Islam or Hinduism are believable so you don't believe them,
you believe what you believe because someone made you believe it just as I was made to believe.

I was never schooled in any religion and no one made me believe anything.

Some laugh at the hope that is within a Christian. Some laugh at the gospel of Jesus which we repeat. Some laugh at an afterlife and the idea of spiritual things. Some people laughed at the idea of airplanes and space flight too. It does not mean it can't be real.

By the way, lots of folks brought up all their lives in Hinduism or Islam have become born again Christians simply from reading the bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not comparing myself to anyone. I've not done so.

Sure you did, you are not fooling anyone.

 

[juvenissun]

I am trying to find out how little the amount of information is required to conclude "the flood did it." Is that hard for you to understand? Why don't you at least vote?

A Ph.D. should not use any scientific term which he does not understand in any way of certainty to convey a scientific argument. This is the minimum qualification of a well educated Ph.D.

The OP is difficult to read because you do not know rocks, but you erroneously used some details of rocks in your main argument. Why can't you use something you do know for the purpose?

 

[Davian]

Is there something wrong with you?

No, I was wondering why you were comparing yourself to Jesus.

Again, that seems to be rather blasphemous to me.

I wonder if Jesus would have been so evasive when it came to responding to posts on an internet discussion board.

 

[Split Rock]

A Ph.D. should not use any scientific term which he does not understand in any way of certainty to convey a scientific argument. This is the minimum qualification of a well educated Ph.D.

The OP is difficult to read because you do not know rocks, but you erroneously used some details of rocks in your main argument. Why can't you use something you do know for the purpose?

What was erroneous? It is either sedimentary or sedimentary-metamorphic. In other words, sedimentary that was transformed into metamorphic. What term am I using wrong, teacher?

 

[Split Rock]

No one made you believe anything they just convinced you it made sense to believe it.
No one becomes a creationist because 'it makes sense'.

One day you will decide that telling lies is a sin and stop doing it, your children also deserve better than that.
Fooling yourself into believing lies is as bad as lying to yourself and your children.

This line you started is going nowhere and has nothing to do with the OP. Please leave, consol.

 

[EternalDragon]

What was erroneous? It is either sedimentary or sedimentary-metamorphic. In other words, sedimentary that was transformed into metamorphic. What term am I using wrong, teacher?

So basically you have demonstrated that a rock doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So basically you have demonstrated that a rock doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

One rock, no, it does not tell us too much. Or I should say it may not.

If it is metamorphic it will often have a crystalline history of its past. If it is sedimentary we can tell what environment it was deposited in. And if it is igneous we can tell its age and what sort of source, whether it was from a volcano or a dike.

Hmm, perhaps we can tell more from one rock than I thought.

 

[juvenissun]

I have a rock in my hand. It is rather non-descript, heavy and rather hard. It is probably sedimentary or sedimentary metamorphic, but I can' tell you any details about its composition. Based on what I have told you, Is this rock:
A. Evidence for the Flood.
B. Evidence for Deep Time.
C. Not evidence for anything.

All the colored words should not be used to describe a rock. Instead of making the description clear, they extremely confused the understanding of the rock.

When these words are made clear, we DO can tell the approximate composition of the rock.

A correct (not sure if it was what you meant) description is:

A rock which is uniform in texture and composition, dense and well cemented (or crystallized). It is probably a metamorphic rock with sedimentary origin (it is not likely to be sedimentary based on the description).

In this case, the best fit common rock is a quartzite, the second choice is a hornfel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the colored words should not be used to describe a rock. Instead of making the description clear, they extremely confused the understanding of the rock.

When these words are made clear, we DO can tell the approximate composition of the rock.

A correct (not sure if it was what you meant) description is:

A rock which is uniform in texture and composition, dense and well cemented (or crystallized). It is probably a metamorphic rock with sedimentary origin (it is not likely to be sedimentary based on the description).

In this case, the best fit common rock is a quartzite, the second choice is a hornfel.

There is a huge difference between the two. Relatively heavy sort of rules out quartzite, don't you think?

 

[EternalDragon]

One rock, no, it does not tell us too much. Or I should say it may not.

If it is metamorphic it will often have a crystalline history of its past. If it is sedimentary we can tell what environment it was deposited in. And if it is igneous we can tell its age and what sort of source, whether it was from a volcano or a dike.

Hmm, perhaps we can tell more from one rock than I thought.

You assume that by detecting isotopes, that you are determining an age. I personally do not accept that you can tell the age of a rock.

 

[lasthero]

I personally do not accept that you can tell the age of a rock.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EnemyOfReason]

The rock is definitely evidence for the Flood. People like yourself fail to realize that one must specify which flood and more importantly that rock are very common as a result of aquatic displacement.

The rock is proof that the Missouri river had indeed flooded.

 

[juvenissun]

There is a huge difference between the two. Relatively heavy sort of rules out quartzite, don't you think?

No.

In order to learn more, you have to show some sincerity.

 

[Split Rock]

So basically you have demonstrated that a rock doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

Having little information or understanding concerning a rock doesn't tell us very much, no.

 

[Split Rock]

All the colored words should not be used to describe a rock. Instead of making the description clear, they extremely confused the understanding of the rock.

When these words are made clear, we DO can tell the approximate composition of the rock.

A correct (not sure if it was what you meant) description is:

A rock which is uniform in texture and composition, dense and well cemented (or crystallized). It is probably a metamorphic rock with sedimentary origin (it is not likely to be sedimentary based on the description).

In this case, the best fit common rock is a quartzite, the second choice is a hornfel.

I meant what I wrote. Without more specific information, one cannot make claims like, "The Flood created that." I was deliberately being vague to make a point. Of course, it flew right over both your head (the Flood Geologist) and E.D.'s head (the Creationist Novice). Something you both seem to have in common...

 

[Split Rock]

You assume that by detecting isotopes, that you are determining an age. I personally do not accept that you can tell the age of a rock.

I suppose that is based on your vast expeience experimenting with radioisotope dating methods... right? No?.... hmmm... must be based on the fact you don't like the dates they provide then... who would have guessed?

 

[EternalDragon]

I suppose that is based on your vast expeience experimenting with radioisotope dating methods... right? No?.... hmmm... must be based on the fact you don't like the dates they provide then... who would have guessed?

No, based on others experience and experiments. Scientists.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

No, based on others experience and experiments. Scientists.

That wouldn't be the same handful of cherry picked misrepresented examples that get trotted out and refuted every time would it?
How about this? You show that more than 10% of radio metric dates are out by more than 5%. Then you'll actually demonstrate a systematic problem instead of wheeling out PRATTs.