Where do the flood strata start and end?

[pshun2404]

I'd love to, the entire point of this thread was to give me enough information so that I could do precisely that. Unfortunately everyone's answer has been "we have no specific explanation for how or when these rock formations were formed". I can't present evidence and refute explanations that don't exist!



I'll ask you the same thing I ask every creationist who brings this sort of thing up: have you ever noticed that these "craaaaaazy radiocarbon date" examples almost always involve marine organisms? Why are they testing mollusks and sea otters? Why not a cow or a cat? It's because they're part of a different carbon cycle than terrestrial organisms, and if you don't correct for that you're going to get older dates (because they're ingesting old carbon).

As for this last statement I assume you mean that Science (Vol. 141, 1963) was just a creationist ragsheet. Wow! I never got that impression all those years I subscribed, but okay. Oh that's right other legitimate scientists are not allowed to publicly dissent from the Darwinian mantra or find facts that bring it into question or that question the limitations of method, technique, or instrumentation, etc.

And as for "we have no specific explanation for how or when these rock formations were formed" I have to say I did not see that post could you show us? We certainly have specific evidence for many of the "explanations" for how and when many of these rock formations were formed. And I think you should present evidence for some or direct us to sources for the evidence. But be careful not to quote anybody...you might get accused. Oh that's right its okay from your side so quote on!

No seriously, logic aside, as sarcastic as I made it appear (kind of like parody), I would love to hear what you say against any assumed to be erroneous claims made by YECs...really...

Paul

 

[troodon]

As for this last statement I assume you mean that Science (Vol. 141, 1963) was just a creationist ragsheet.

Here's a tip: if you want to cite things like a pro, that is to say in a way in which people can actually find out what the heck you're talking about, you're going to have to be more specific:

Wow! I never got that impression all those years I subscribed, but okay. Oh that's right other legitimate scientists are not allowed to publicly dissent from the Darwinian mantra or find facts that bring it into question or that question the limitations of method, technique, or instrumentation, etc.

This has no bearing on the point that I made, which is that almost all of the "isn't this radiocarbon date ridiculous" examples that creationists point to are on marine organisms. It's deceptive to use them as examples of the method being unreliable regardless of who ran the test.

And as for "we have no specific explanation for how or when these rock formations were formed" I have to say I did not see that post could you show us?

"Okay sorry than my answer is no! I do not believe one can point to a specific set of layers and say "This is it, the flood layers" "

If flood layers exist, but you cannot specify which layers are or are not flood layers, then you have no idea when rock layers were formed (because any layers could be pre-flood or post-flood) and you have no idea how they were formed (because any layer could be made by a flood, or not made by a flood, or made under pre-flood conditions, or made under post-flood conditions).

We certainly have specific evidence for many of the "explanations" for how and when many of these rock formations were formed. And I think you should present evidence for some or direct us to sources for the evidence.

Why should I have to "present evidence" for how creationists explain the formation of sedimentary strata - that's up to creationists to do. My job is to falsify that information once it has been presented. But since no creationist on this board is willing to explain how, say, the Chinle Formation or the Morrison Formation were created I have nothing to falsify!

No seriously, logic aside, as sarcastic as I made it appear (kind of like parody), I would love to hear what you say against any assumed to be erroneous claims made by YECs...really...

I did make this thread long ago. Check out specifically #5.
http://www.christianforums.com/t6658162/

 

[MrsLurking]

I love the way your side applies "guote-mining" as well...you never apply it to authors who support your side only to those who point out disagreements (even from non-creationists)...I gave SoM and recently VS, examples of "your side" scholars (one a world class geologist) who used quotations of others to support his point...but that was okay, right? Uh-huh! Of course. But when someone quotes people demonstrating they do not quite agree that's a no no!l

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "dishonest quote-mining". It sounds like you think that "quote-mining" is simply the "appeal to authority fallacy." No, it is something quite different.

Indeed, English comprehension obstacles are clearly complicating your understanding of the topic. I'm starting to understand why you are missing the point on so many topics. I empathize because I did grad work in a second language.

TalkOrigins.org does an outstanding job. You lost my respect when you lumped it in with creationist propaganda websites.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "dishonest quote-mining". It sounds like you think that "quote-mining" is simply the "appeal to authority fallacy." No, it is something quite different.

Indeed, English comprehension obstacles are clearly complicating your understanding of the topic. I'm starting to understand why you are missing the point on so many topics. I empathize because I did grad work in a second language environment. It's not easy.

TalkOrigins.org does an outstanding job. You lost my respect when you lumped it in with creationist propaganda websites.

 

[pshun2404]

Uh-oh! Deja Vu...but I still respect you...maam! And no I do not think it is the appeal to authority fallacy and congrads on your grad work

Though I have never seen references listed as you insist would be professional (and I have read a lot of material), if what you posted is Troo it would be No. 3581...see pg. 636...! And I do not know what creationist websites that always use marine organisms you are referring to but I have seen other such articles relating to newly formed fossils (not marine life) being mis-dated using Potassium-Argon (this happened a lot so now we use Argon-Argon which definitely was an improvement). But radio-carbon dating is based on too many assumptions. Also it is well known that C-14 evidence found which disagrees with the expected date of a layer it is found in is often discarded (not by all...there are lots of honest scientists doing the work).

Paul

 

[troodon]

Though I have never seen references listed as you insist would be professional (and I have read a lot of material), if what you posted is Troo it would be No. 3581...see pg. 636...!

For a forum, if you expect people to be able to find what you're looking for, you need to give as much information as is necessary to assist them. Just giving journal name, a volume number, and a loose idea as to what the topic might be doesn't help at all.

And what do you mean you've never seen references listed with full info? That's how references are made! Usually some variant on:

Author names. Date of publication. Title. Volume (number): page numbers

Having looked at the actual paper now the entire point of it was to show that carbon dating is unreliable for mollusks!

And I do not know what creationist websites that always use marine organisms you are referring to

Here's one that was linked to me in another thread just a week ago. You can just check the description below if you don't want to watch the video, the claim is duplicated there.

but I have seen other such articles relating to newly formed fossils (not marine life) being mis-dated using Potassium-Argon

How recent are these newly formed fossils? Are they within the range of ages for which K-Ar dating is supposed to work?

 

[Assyrian]

There are two different games people can play with Carbon 14, dating living (marine) organisms and getting older dates from the older aquatic CO[sub]2[/sub] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]--[/sup]. Another trick is to date ancient samples like coal and diamonds and relying on contamination and background Carbon 14 to get anomalous younger dates. Potassium Argon reference sounds like the games they play with recent volcanic rock. Here the ways they manage to get anomalous older dates include samples contaminated with older crystals or xenoliths, or sending the sample to labs whose equipment isn't sensitive enough to measure the small amount of Argon in the sample and whose readings for very young dates can be thrown off by residual Argon in the machinery itself.

 

[juvenissun]

There are two different games people can play with Carbon 14, dating living (marine) organisms and getting older dates from the older aquatic CO[sub]2[/sub] and CO[sub]3[/sub][sup]--[/sup]. Another trick is to date ancient samples like coal and diamonds and relying on contamination and background Carbon 14 to get anomalous younger dates. Potassium Argon reference sounds like the games they play with recent volcanic rock. Here the ways they manage to get anomalous older dates include samples contaminated with older crystals or xenoliths, or sending the sample to labs whose equipment isn't sensitive enough to measure the small amount of Argon in the sample and whose readings for very young dates can be thrown off by residual Argon in the machinery itself.

You are genius. (no sarcasm)

 

[ChetSinger]

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "dishonest quote-mining". It sounds like you think that "quote-mining" is simply the "appeal to authority fallacy." No, it is something quite different.

Indeed, English comprehension obstacles are clearly complicating your understanding of the topic. I'm starting to understand why you are missing the point on so many topics. I empathize because I did grad work in a second language.

TalkOrigins.org does an outstanding job. You lost my respect when you lumped it in with creationist propaganda websites.

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term "dishonest quote-mining". It sounds like you think that "quote-mining" is simply the "appeal to authority fallacy." No, it is something quite different.

Indeed, English comprehension obstacles are clearly complicating your understanding of the topic. I'm starting to understand why you are missing the point on so many topics. I empathize because I did grad work in a second language environment. It's not easy.

TalkOrigins.org does an outstanding job. You lost my respect when you lumped it in with creationist propaganda websites.

What just happened here? Are you two the same person?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

TalkOrigins.org suck.

 

[troodon]

What just happened here? Are you two the same person?

It's definitely odd. The second user there is a brand new account and apparently posting up a storm.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

What just happened here? Are you two the same person?

Mother and son. I'm visiting my parents---who got me interested in this forum---and I failed to log out of her account and log into my own. She had left her Firefox browser open and I like to use Opera on the same machine, and I got mixed up between the two.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

TalkOrigins.org suck.

What do you think is so bad about TalkOrigins.org?

I find it one of the most complete and best structured resources on origins topics. And it does a great job providing full contexts for dishonest creationist quote-mines. (Is that why you dislike it?)

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

What do you think is so bad about TalkOrigins.org?

I find it one of the most complete and best structured resources on origins topics. And it does a great job providing full contexts for dishonest creationist quote-mines. (Is that why you dislike it?)

they are condescending. its a huddle. and the info isn't good. they exist to bash anyone who isn't part of their huddle. they are closed minded.
i went over there once, years ago to try and find out about carbon dating of coal. i got fed up with their superior attitude, and i felt humiliated.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

they are condescending. its a huddle. and the info isn't good. they exist to bash anyone who isn't part of their huddle. they are closed minded.
i went over there once, years ago to try and find out about carbon dating of coal. i got fed up with their superior attitude, and i felt humiliated.

Interesting. I've never gotten those impressions there. And I've find their citations much more accurate and complete than the vast majority of creationist websites. Can you give me some examples of "the info isn't good" at Talkorigins.org?

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

i went over there once, years ago to try and find out about carbon dating of coal. i got fed up with their superior attitude, and i felt humiliated.

Are you saying that simply from READING the website, you felt humiliated?

 

[juvenissun]

What just happened here? Are you two the same person?

My guess is that this person is using more than two names. This trick does not work. One can change name, but can not change one's knowledge. A simple litmus test will show the tail.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

Are you saying that simply from READING the website, you felt humiliated?

no, i was on a forum over there, similar to this one. the moderator barged in and told me i was an idiot basically. all these people hanging around on the forum were supposed experts in everything, and i was a ill educated baffoon.

the info that they had posted was a line up of hominid skulls. it might be better now. i havn't been back there.

i read about the australopithecines and i get conflicting info. i would like to know if lucy really did walk upright. i'd like to know how different homo erectus was from homo sapiens.. the skeleton. you cant trust creationist info as they believe that homo erectus and nearndethals were humans, with funny shaped heads. and they dont seem to know what to make of australopithecines. it would be good if they found another australopithecine skeleton.

 

[NoPostDocFrock]

My guess is that this person is using more than two names. This trick does not work. One can change name, but can not change one's knowledge. A simple litmus test will show the tail.

I'm curious: What possible advantage would "this person is using more than two names" gain? What "trick" is accomplished by this? ("This trick does not work" for what???) I know that on Yahoo Answers some people play multiple accounts in order to vote more points for their main identity (although I've never been able to figure out what value such "points" have.) But ChristianForums doesn't give out any points or prizes, so what would be the purpose of multiple accounts?

Plus, if I used my mother's account instead of my own, I would be allowed to post links, because my small post count prohibits me from using them until I have some large number of posts in my history.

So please explain. You have my interest. (Do origins forums ALWAYS focus on various "conspiracy theories" and sinister forces?)

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

(Do origins forums ALWAYS focus on various "conspiracy theories" and sinister forces?)

i think that christian forums should have an off topic conspiracy forum. where might i suggest that?