Summations Only

This post of yours just demonstrates your utter failure to understand anything about this subject. Everything I've said is possible and makes sense. As usual you seem to be incapable of recognizing that "floods" on a local scale have nothing to say about a worldwide Flood. Failure of scientific imagination as usual.What absolute nonsense about THE Flood anyway. OCEAN WATER TRANSPORTS SEDIMENTS, nobody said anything about transporting "layers." THE Flood could very well have dropped sediments over thousands of miles. You have a head full of crazy ideas of your own that have nothing to do with anything I've said. Experiments have shown this occurs. Berthault. But if you refuse to accept that, the response to you is that there is NO way TIME PERIODS sort specific sediments to characterize their supposed eras for sure, whereas we KNOW that water moves sediments. When you get down to it most of the layers are explained as having been formed in water anyway but you all ignore the implications of that fact. I didn't say they did but that's something to think about. Of course not. The evolutionary and geologic eras are an illusion, a really weird illusion you'd think anyone with half a brain could see was nuts, imputing time periods to sedimentary rocks.And again, "FLOODS" don't do anything remotely like what THE Flood would have done. "Floods" don't do anything, THE Flood did however transport the ingredients, that is the organic matter, that CREATED such deposits by compression under tons of sediments, and then principles of physics collected the result in recognizable formations. This has been answered so many times by now it has become a bald faced lie. Nobody has said the Flood itself created the meanders of the rivers; those were created on flat exposed layers after the Flood waters had settled down leaving rivers, I'm beginning to think you have lost your mind altogether. No such thing as "meandering cracks" has been mentioned. You make it all up yourself out of thin air, demonstrating your failure of scientific imagination at the same time. Tectonic forces made the cliffs and canyons of the Grand Staircase, and would have made that sort of crack in the same levels of strata over the Grand Canyon OVER A MILE ABOVE THE CURRENT LEVEL OF THE GC TOO. But I'm sure you can't grasp such a concept. Erosion cuts gullies.
And I thought it was YOU who attributed the slope retreat to erosion.
Mud dries, clay dries.Your blatant misrepresentation of my posts really doesn't deserve any more consideration but MAYBE I'll be back later to answer the rest of your nonsense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ROFLMAO! They are published in the open literature; as I noted at least one good example is published in Nature, arguably the most prestigious journal in the world. They are accessible to anyone although some might have to pay a few bucks to get them (MIT Library will send you a PDF of any reasonable-sized article for $20, and there are lots of other ways). If creationists want to address radiometric dating, it's up to them to know what has gone on and is going on in the field. Otherwise they are just making up fantasies, like you.Are you really arguing that someone in this world-wide shadow conspiracy you proposed should be placed in charge of notifying every creationist with an interest in dating whenever a inconsilent report is published? Really? You think that the mainstream community should serve up information to you on a silver platter so you don't have to look for evidence yourself? It isn't a fact, it's one of your unsupported fantasies. You have never even tried to argue why your think it's a fact, as is your standard MO. And there's the standard YEC response when called on it. "False readings are never reported, it's always made to seem absolutely perfect even though you know it isn't." is not a claim of bias; it's a claim of deliberately suppressing relevant evidence. Any scientist caught doing that would immediately lose her entire career. You are claiming intentional fraud, there's no way of sugar coating it.A relevant legal decision just got handed down. It has to do with climate change deniers, but the same principle applies. From the Judge's ruling:

quote:

---

The statement he has molested and tortured data could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with actual malice are questions of fact for the jury.

​

To state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation....

​

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

---

You have literally libeled tens of thousands of people, obviously maliciously, and offered not a shred of evidence for your libelous claim. E.g. Coyote could sue you and have chance of winning. Your best defense would be that your claims are so obviously ludicrous that no rational human could believe them.Of course you won't apologize, that would be admitting you aren't infallible in all things.Even if we grant your obviously false claim that you mean bias rather than fraud, do you really think out of all those tens of thousands of people not one can overcome bias? After they have been trained to suspect everything and work diligently to overcome any biases? Wanna buy a few bridges? Have you met any scientists ever?

Then your steps 7 and 8 could not have happened fast enough.

Now there's a great example of addressing the fact that almost everything you post is fantasy that you imagine and resisting the urge to insult.Way to set an example!Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Debating with Faith reminds me of the old quotation:

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

​

George Bernard Shaw

Rational debate is fruitless with those who either deny reality, or whose grasp of reality is nil. Scientific debate with those same folks is impossible.So as far as this thread is concerned, I'm headed for the sidelines--though I may do some Faith-style commentary on occasion.

No, it's a result of unconsciously emphasizing the positive, not intentional fraud.And when I said it's withheld from creationists I meant in discussions like these. It's always presented as a FACT. It is NOT a fact.

I'm not in the business of setting examples. As I said, you stop, I stop.

Those who DO overcome their bias become creationists and lose their standing in the scientific community.No, scientists are not trained to suspect the Theory of Evolution or the Old Earth, sorry, there is nothing but affirmation of those theories and ridicule of objectors to them. The bias against creationism is way too strong.An odd thing is that I used to have lots of scientist friends, some great discussions too. When I started to become a Christian one of my physicist friends gave me a book about Gnosticism to get me off my Biblical track. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why did you kill them? Where did you bury them?

Like I said, I knew you didn't have a clue what I was saying about fact versus interpretation, or about your definitional brain cramp concerning theory and proof. Too bad, it's the key to the whole mess.

You're SO cute.I lost most of my "friends" when I became a Christian, their doing not mine. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Uncommonly emphasizing the positive"? WTF?"False readings are never reported, it's always made to seem absolutely perfect even though you know it isn't" is an accusation of intentional fraud by whomever you are referring to. I made it clear in my response that I was interpreting that as the scientific community. And that's because the idea that such reports are never posted in forums such as these is so ludicrous. There's an unsupported assertion again. What research have you done to support your claim that "withheld from creationists ... discussions like these"?The KBS Tuff has been discussed in many places here, most notably Message 17 (which contains a link to the Index of Creationist Claims entry on the KBS Tuff) and also at [msgid=510978] and following. I brought it up at Message 7. There's a long thread to which I contributed a lot of material at the talk.origins newsgroup (which does not require registration; if you have a Google account it will be easier to follow at talk.origins.) I know I posted some details back at IIDB which are now inaccessible. I also see Forbidden - Stack Exchange
and 404 Not Found and 404 Not Found and 404 Not Found and two whole threads about it (initiated by a YEC) Throwing Out RM Dates Because of the Fossils and Fitch and Miller stuff (split from the Bertsche thread)I see several instance in those threads in which I mentioned the KBS Tuff and its dating difficulties.And that's not even scratching the surface. I think I'll start a thread dedicated to it, but I bet you'll have nothing to contribute other than "is toowrong!"Your unsupported claim is wrong as usual.

I'll be your friend.The earth really is young.
When you are judged you will be greatly rewarded for shouting down science.Feel better now?

Oh cut the fevered indignation bit. Read anything Coyote has written here, it's ALL about radiometric dating, that's his answer to absolutely everything a creationist has to say, and he ALWAYS presents the age of anything as a FACT, never something there could be the slightest question about.

Hezekiah's Siloam tunnel to the rescue.