Now living in Beijing China. It is wonderful.
BrotherSteve said:
I read the article--it doesn't prove anything.
All you are doing is using techniques to determine the age of craters that fits with your theory. This is what evolutionist do. It is not scientific.
And I suppose you are a scientist? Some how I doubt it. Science is nothing more than logic applied to natural observations and those who don't practice science are not the judges of what is scientific.
If I am wrong, please tell me where I can find your scientific papers.
Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks.
no I don't. I know the level at which the meteor hit based upon the faults and where they stopped cutting the sediments. That means that the faults show a time sequence, they cut the lower rocks, which were deposited earlier than the uncut upper rocks. Now, If those sediments are were deposited during the global flood, the end of the faulting must mark the impact event. But there is more to it than that. Water logged sediment compacts as the sediments are buried. In such a case, the faulting would go up to the surface, assuming a global flood. Why? Because water flows through rocks at about 3 meters per year at the fastest. That means that the compaction could not be completed until long long after the flood, especially since the impact event is at a depth of about 3,000 meters. And the compaction of the sediments across the fault would cause the faulting to continue to the surface. The fact that we don't see that shows that your concept of how the sediment was deposited is false.
When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?
They have been. Attached below is a chart of 280 supposedly bad radioactive dates published by John Woodmorappe back in 1979. As you can see, there is a trend that if the rock is expected to be older (meaning it is buried deeper), the rock gives an older radioactive date. Once again, your knowledge of geology is rather poor
Based on one observation you know what it looks like when a meteor crashes into the earth's surface? So you have set all of your argument on assumptions. The human race only knows what the impact of one particular meteor does. You (and many others) have no idea if any thing you are saying about meteors, or the craters you claim they make is right.
Just because I showed you only one, doesn't mean that there is only one. Nor does it mean that I have only seen one. Your logic needs some improving here.
Why is it that YECs always argue in favor of ignorance? Saying that we can't know anything. If we can't know anything, then we can't know that God exists. Are you aware that the very arguments that you use against the scientists can be turned around and used on you? How do you know God exists? Have you seen him? Were you there when he created the world to know that what he says happened is what really happened? See how easy that is?
Just imagine if this logic was applied to other scientific fields. What would you say if your doctor told you "this will definately make you better, we even tried it once and it worked that time."
As I said, your logic is flawed. there are lots and lots of meteor craters, both here on earth and on the moon, on Mars, and so we have many examples. Your problem is that you never read about anything except in creationist misinformation rags.
Fair enough. But you (or any evolutionist) still have not scientifically proven anything about the age of the earth, where the creaters came from, etc, etc.
All you have done is found some evidence that fits pretty well with your theory and then concluded that you are right. You have not proven anything, you could be wrong! It has happened before in scientific history.
Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Find evidence and see if it fits the theory? And if it does, then it confirms the theory (note that doesn't mean prove the theory). As to being wrong, you would have to overturn lots and lots of other evidence as well.
YEC's are just doing the same thing you are--finding evidence that supports thier theory.
No they are not. They aren't finding diddly. they don't do science, they don't think logically and when faced with problems tell people to ignore those evil scientists.
