Summations Only

Well yea cause its not science i imagine it has the same bias as homoeopathy, spirit channelling, and the like.LOK there are some 40 dating methods that point to an old earth all working on different principles. And no dating method points to a young earth except the add up the lifespans of the people in the bible and you get the age of the earth method of course, i wonder why anyone using that method is ridiculed in the scientific community.TOE has been suspect and under attack for as long as it has existed and guess what all your attacks just made it stronger so much so that it is now a fact and a theory.Your alternative "theory" creationism should be ridiculed Magic man dun it is not a scientific theory nor will it ever be. And it goes against everything the scientific community has built up in the past 500 years.

Tic toc, tic toc, there, that should do it. What were we discussing again?

Name some, including proof that they were members of the scientific community before they became YECs. You should also discuss Russel Humphreys, a YEC physicist at Sandia Labs whose modeling software is well respected and used in the scientific community but whose YEC fantasies have been rightly trashed. The day you support support one of your assertions will certainly be a red letter day. I notice you have offered no support for this particular one over several messages. Just another UABY (unsupported assertion by Faith).Apparently you really believe that tens of thousands of people can be brainwashed over hundreds of years without a single one figuring it out. Bet you can't cite a single instance anywhere in science or outside for which there is solid evidence for this happening. He still has standing in the scientific community for the valid work he's done. And what does your physicist friend say about the age of the Earth? Have you told him/her that he/she is brainwashed and not considering alternatives to the physics we know?

Double-click double-postEdited by JonF, : No reason given.

There was a Jesus Christ once who would have disagreed with you.Edited by JonF, : Quote was from wrong message.

Whatever Coyote has or has not written is irrelevant. WTF is "Uncommonly emphasizing the positive"? Your claim was "False readings are never reported, it's always made to seem absolutely perfect even though you know it isn't". That doesn't refer to an individual, it refers to a group, and is libeling that group. You owe that group an apology because your UABF was wrong as usualAnd your other UABF, "And when I said it's withheld from creationists I meant in discussions like these. ", has been proven conclusively wrong. Will you admit your error or will you continue to insist you are globally infallible?

And there's 40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger (full text free with subscription).

This statement is as much at odds with the evidence as most everything else you've said. Well yes, that's your whole problem in a nutshell, that you're concocting scenarios from your imagination instead of from evidence. You can't possibly know anything about a worldwide flood because there is no evidence of one. You're left making up unsupported claims about what a worldwide flood would do based upon no evidence at all, and that magically does whatever you need it to do. Boy, everything needs to be redescribed in detail for you I guess. I guess it isn't a safe assumption that you'll be able to recognize briefly listed items that we've already discussed.I didn't say it transported layers whole. That item was just a reference to your claim that the current layers of the geological column were once antediluvian layers that the flood eroded away, then transported and redeposited them into their current locations. Floods cannot do this. Material from distinctly different layers caught up in a flood are going to be pretty thoroughly all mixed up, not kept separate. Bertault showed that energetic flows when carefully channelled in a particular way under laboratory conditions can rapidly deposit multiple layers of sediment in a short time, adding to layers horizontally rather than vertically. Bertault didn't show anything about this occurring in a flood nor even anywhere in nature. What you've usually done is ignored radiometric dating. The fact remains that no kind of sorting could organize radiometric materials into layers of decreasing age. Rebuttals like this are why everyone is certain that you have no evidence. You can call things names like "nuts" and so forth, but you never have any evidence. So you keep saying, but with all your blustering you still have no evidence of a global flood, and no evidence or examples of how it would behave. All you have is what you're making up, and this is clearly obvious to everyone. But if oil and gas can be created in short time periods, as you have claimed, then much oil and gas should have been created in the antediluvian layers. If they were randomly mixed up in the flood then traces of them should be present in all layers. If they were redeposited into their original layers then you need a way for the flood to transport them while keeping them with their original layer. As has been pointed out numerous times, the meanders go from top to bottom. The meanders were the original shape of the canyon. In your scenario where the course of the river was created by cracks created by tectonic forces, the cracks would have had to meander. What do mean meadering cracks have never been mentioned? That was the whole point of the discussion about meanders. The posts discussing it with you are there for anyone to see. No rational persion would deny that these discussions took place. Let me get this straight. Tectonic forces made the cliffs of places like the Grand Canyon. Were these cracks or something else?And at the same time that tectonic forces were creating places like Grand Canyon it was still buried under over a mile of layers. Did you really mean to say that?And these layers overlying the Grand Canyon became cracked by the same tectonic forces that created the Grand Canyon. Did these cracks descend down as far as the Grand Canyon that had been created? Well, yes, Faith, of course erosion cuts gullies, and I've said as much. I guess there must be more of my posts that you haven't read than I thought. The point is that erosion levels landscapes. It reduces mountains to plains. Layers will erode at rates dependent on hardness, and the harder layers will last the longest, but eventually even the hardest layers will erode away and leave a level plain. Yes, of course, but if you see a contradiction somewhere you're going to have to describe it. Just staying with the context of slope retreats, landscapes don't go on forever. They eventually meet another canyon or the ocean or something. Eventually slope retreats run out of room to retreat, and when all is said and done the sides of the Grand Canyon will have retreated great distances and the Colorado River will flow across a flat and lonely plain. This has been answered, Faith. Mud and clay do not dry to rock. When you add water they turn back to mud and clay. Rock does not form by drying. It forms from compaction and cementation. The only rocks that harden by drying are the ones of your imagination.--Percy

And way back in the 1950's carbon-14 dating cut its baby teeth on Egyptian artefacts that had approximate dates from historical records. C'mon, Faith: don't make up everything you say!

There have been a number of such cases, but tree-rings, varves and similar annular phenomena are even better.So, of course, the hard-core creationists have to deny, misrepresent, ignore or otherwise abuse the evidence or the method so they feel they don't have to accept it.Its funny to watch: we have Luddites among us to this very day!

Thanks That lake covered Glenn Canyon so that canyon was not yet eroded. And carving the Glenn Canyon at that time ... in a manner that is entirely similar to the Grand Canyon even though it is a totally different process.

Because it doesn't climb up onto the uplift and already has the incised meanders when the east-west uplift occurs.There are several different phases\areas\locations of uplift.Maybe a set of pictures would help.

I guess this still needs to be corrected, you don't seem to have noticed the problem: You misread. The word was "unconsciously" not "uncommonly."And since Coyote's posts were what provoked my comment about how we never hear about the false readings of radiometric dating methods, it's not only relevant it's the whole point.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And once again you don't know what you're talking about.

Funny how nobody gets the point about how you can't verify anything from the prehistoric past. Weird really. You can't even have a "theory" about it, according to Coyote's own page of definitions. But that doesn't stop anybody. As long as the illusion is upheld that it IS a scientific theory that IS substantiated, there's really no point in any of this discussion. There's no hope of ever proving a thing under such circumstances. You can't kill a mental invention, it just keeps re-forming itself like a cloud.Just as a side point, Rox posted a link to an article way back there that described Geology as an interpretive science (Geological Reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science) and made it clear that it's usually regarded as less than a genuine science for that reason. Which is really all I've been saying. The writer isn't interested in my point of view of course, he's actually trying to defend it as a mode of philosophical reasoning, which I find absurd in another way, basing it on subjective interpretation as a scientific method, which is useless for science OR for philosophy it seems to me. Anyway it highlights what I've been trying to say about THE problem with the sciences of the past, it just absurdly tries to defend it as rational.Anyway I'm glad it's been officially NOTICED that Geology, at least Old Earthism, isn't really science as science has always been understood:A couple of quotes from the article: