Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are Wrong

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why? To what end?

His Boolean standards:

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is [his interpretation of] the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[River Jordan]

His Boolean standards:

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is [his interpretation of] the Bible to be contradicted.

Oh, the pride issue again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

Because I don't agree with their conclusions.

In other words, they'll tell you those volcanoes formed over [insert deep time here].

And in no way do I accept that.

The "talk trash" was your words, by the way, not mine.

 

[River Jordan]

Because I don't agree with their conclusions.

In other words, they'll tell you those volcanoes formed over [insert deep time here].

And in no way do I accept that.

The "talk trash" was your words, by the way, not mine.

And what exactly do you hope to accomplish with that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, the pride issue again.

If you want to listen to Warden, you'll end up as confused as he is.

But if that's the academic thing to do -- (that is, get it second-hand from someone confused, rather than first-hand from someone who isn't) -- I'll certainly understand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you want to listen to Warden, you'll end up as confused as he is.

But if that's the academic thing to do -- (that is, get it second-hand from someone confused, rather than first-hand from someone who isn't) -- I'll certainly understand.

But it's not confusing to point out that the entire issue hinges entirely on science/academia/anyone who isn't you not agreeing with your singular personal interpretation of the Bible, which is such an outlandish interpretation of the Bible that honestly I'd love to convene a meeting of all the main Christian denomination leaders, show them your stuff and see what the result would be.

 

[sjastro]

Radiometric dating works fine when the starting ratio is known, not assumed.

This is typical misinformation peddled by YEC sites. Starting ratios are never assumed as it is not the rock which determines the ratio but the physical processes of melting, solidification and crystallization which reset the radiometric clock.

If the daughter atoms are argon as in K-Ar dating, the gas is expelled when the rock is in a molten state and radiometric clock starts when the rock solidifies.
For U-Pb dating zircon crystals are formed when the rock solidifies and Pb (lead) daughter atoms will only accumulate in the crystal below a certain temperature.
It is at this temperature when the radiometric clock resets.

 

[AV1611VET]

But it's not confusing to point out that the entire issue hinges entirely on science/academia/anyone who isn't you not agreeing with your singular personal interpretation of the Bible, which is such an outlandish interpretation of the Bible that honestly I'd love to convene a meeting of all the main Christian denomination leaders, show them your stuff and see what the result would be.

In the meantime, you'll just continue to give us your confused 2¢ worth of what you think I believe, and we can all watch you get thumbs up and acknowledgements from your academic cohorts who think you're assessing what I believe correctly ... right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In the meantime, you'll just continue to give us your confused 2¢ worth of what you think I believe, and we can all watch you get thumbs up and acknowledgements from your academic cohorts who think you're assessing what I believe correctly ... right?

You imagine me being so much more important than I am, it's hilarious, while your obvious Don Quixote-esque vendetta against academia is so childish that anyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be an 'academic' (for whatever value of worth that is coming from you) is just terribly sad to see.

Also, your obvious persecution complex is showing, again.

 

[dlamberth]

According to that AI Overview article, volcanoes form when molten rock rises to the surface through cracks in the crust.

AV, your not asking AI the right question about subduction zone basalt's. That's why your posting a childish answer. Ask AI this question instead: "Where does subduction zone basalt come from?" There's a lot more to the process than just "cracks in the crust". And it gets even more interesting when the subduction arc breaks or divides or moves in a more shallow or steeper depth.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, your not asking AI the right question about subduction zone basalt's. That's why your posting a childish answer. Ask AI this question instead: "Where does subduction zone basalt come from?" There's a lot more to the process than just "cracks in the crust". And it gets even more interesting when the subduction arc breaks or divides or moves in a more shallow or steeper depth.

Okay.

I asked.

And here's the answer:

Subduction zone basalt comes from the partial melting of mantle rock as it sinks beneath a tectonic plate,

Now what?

(And for the record, you never mentioned basalt until after I replied. But I don't care, as my point still stands.)

 

[dlamberth]

Okay.

I asked.

And here's the answer:

Subduction zone basalt comes from the partial melting of mantle rock as it sinks beneath a tectonic plate,

Now what?

(And for the record, you never mentioned basalt until after I replied. But I don't care, as my point still stands.)

For the record, you replied to my posting when I wrote that there is lot of other geological features going on then geological layers that Noah's flood can not explain. And I gave the Cascade Volcanic Arc as an example. There's a focus on the geological layers, and I was just making the point that there's a LOT more going on geological wise than those layers that seems to get lost in the discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the record, you replied to my posting when I wrote that there is lot of other geological features going on then geological layers that Noah's flood can not explain. And I gave the Cascade Volcanic Arc as an example. There's a focus on the geological layers, and I was just making the point that there's a LOT more going on geological wise than those layers that seems to get lost in the discussion.

Mother Earth has over 6000 years of her landmass being shaken, pulled apart, ripped, torn, and moved around like a tilt-a-whirl.

All done by an omnipotent Creator who spoke her into existence in the first place.

In between all that, her landmass has also moved on its own by gravity, plate tectonics, and what have you.

All this constant moving and shaking around has produced islands, volcanoes, lagoons, mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, canyons, etc.

So yes ... there's a LOT more that went on geological wise than those layers that seem to get lost in the discussion.

If you want to bring up another example, please do so, and let's discuss it.

 

[dlamberth]

Mother Earth has over 6000 years of her landmass being shaken, pulled apart, ripped, torn, and moved around like a tilt-a-whirl.

All done by an omnipotent Creator who spoke her into existence in the first place.

In between all that, her landmass has also moved on its own by gravity, plate tectonics, and what have you.

All this constant moving and shaking around has produced islands, volcanoes, lagoons, mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, canyons, etc.

So yes ... there's a LOT more that went on geological wise than those layers that seem to get lost in the discussion.

If you want to bring up another example, please do so, and let's discuss it.

In the case of the Cascade Mountains, 46 million years years ago the process of mountain building began...with no evidence of a global flood anywhere. But there's a lot of historical evidence within the Cascade Arc history itself from the dating and chemical make up of features like batholiths to volcanic basalt flows.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the case of the Cascade Mountains, 46 million years years ago the process of mountain building began...with no evidence of a global flood anywhere.

You were there?

How do you know there wasn't any evidence of a global flood anywhere?

I mean ... I don't think there was either ... but not for the reason you do.

But there's a lot of historical evidence within the Cascade Arc history itself from the dating and chemical make up of features like batholiths to volcanic basalt flows.

1. The dating is just that -- dating. It yields how old the object being dated is -- nothing more.

2. The chemical makeup is just that -- chemical makeup. It yields how the molecules cling to one another -- nothing more.

3. A batholith, according to AI Overview is: a large, irregularly shaped mass of igneous rock that forms when magma cools and crystallizes deep within the Earth's crust. What's the point?

4. A volcanic basalt flow, according to AI Overview is: an outpouring of molten basalt from a volcano.

Big ... deal.

I don't see anything that tells me anything about a passage of time.

The passage of time aspect is a human construct that works only on paper; and then after years and years of trial-and-error and computer programming.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I mean ... I don't think there was either ... but not for the reason you do.

Which is a copout answer and calls into question any integrity behind the whole thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is a copout answer and calls into question any integrity behind the whole thing.

Then feel free to tell us why dlamberth thinks there is no evidence of the Flood, and why I think there's no evidence of the Flood.

And when you compare the two reasons, I think you'll see I agree with him, but not for the same reason.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then feel free to tell us why dlamberth thinks there is no evidence of the Flood, and why I think there's no evidence of the Flood.

Dlamberth thinks there's no evidence for the Flood because the Flood didn't happen, you think that there's evidence for the Flood because it DID happen but God cleaned everything up in such a way that it looks suspiciously like nothing happened whatsoever (I obviously added the 'suspiciously', before anyone reading thinks that's AV).

And when you compare the two reasons, I think you'll see I agree with him, but not for the same reason.

When you say "Oh, I believe it happened but God cleaned everything up so it looks like it didn't happen at all", that's not agreeing with him, since you still say that the Flood happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you say "Oh, I believe it happened but God cleaned everything up so it looks like it didn't happen at all", that's not agreeing with him, since you still say that the Flood happened.

Dlamberth: There is no evidence of the Flood found on Earth.

AV1611VET: There is no evidence of the Flood found on Earth.

So, yes, we do agree.

Dlamberth: There is no evidence because there was no Flood.

AV1611VET: There is no evidence because the evidence was cleaned up.

Thus not for the same reason.

Now -- if you want to approach it from this angle:

Dlamberth: There never was any evidence of the Flood, because the Flood never happened.

... then I'm going to disagree.

AV1611: There was evidence at one time, but it was cleaned up.

(And in fact, I think the evidence was taken to another planet.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

(And in fact, I think the evidence was taken to another planet.)

Neptune, wasn't it?