Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark

I think he didn't supply one of the classic links, BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK" FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE; one of the authors was with Wyatt on the Ark expedition.

This is a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. Support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

This is a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. Cease your irelevant babble, support your claim with evidence (not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull) or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!{edited to add}You were suspended once for posting long irrelevancies and not responding to important items in the thread. I have no admin authority, but I suspect that what you are doing is inviting another suspension.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-22-2004]

You have yet to establish that anybody is rigging anything, or that any dating methods are unscientific.From the M-W dictionary:

quote:

---

Rig: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means

---

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about dating are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Proivide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim. It would be a totally different claim, and it would only be slightly more correct. The tracks we date could not have occurred after the sediments lithified, and the dates we get are either the date of lithification or a date slightly after lithification. Either way, radioisotope dating establishes a minimum age for such tracks.I will not respond to your other claims, which have been discusssed to death before. Snelling is lying, Austin is lying, Brown is lying, and this has been proven. Leaching and argon and bubbles and what-not are all irrelevant. Since you do not have any idea of how dating methods work, and you have refused to learn, there's nothing more to be said.

Yes, and I have posted evidence that they are liars and explained in detail exactly why they are liars, many times. You have ignored this evidence. Yes, and I have posted evidence that he was a liar and explained in detail exactly why he was a liar, many times. You have ignored this evidence. You are posting gibberish.I have a problem with you repeating a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the third time, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW! I discount Humphreys' "excess helium" because he made elementary errors in his anlysis, especially when he calculated the diffusion rate assuming zero helium outside the crystal.

Your posts are irrelevant. Respond to my point as required in the forum guidelines.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old", which you have made before and not supported. For the fourth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

As usual, you are making stuff up, and, as usual, it's total hooey.Your scenario doesn't work. There is a thing called "fretting". Things that fit together tightly but are not attached so as to prevent movement do move relative to each other, very tiny and often un-noticable amounts, and the wear caused by this motion is as bad as and often worse than the wear caused by larger relatvie motions. Your tightly fitting rope would wear. Not necessary. The information we have is sufficient to evaluate Wyatt's claims.{Added in edit} Almost all of the bones that we find that do have carbon are tested. Fossil bones don't have carbon.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-23-2004]

You have yet to establish that anybody is rigging anything, or that any dating methods are unscientific.From the M-W dictionary:

quote:

---

Rig: to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means

---

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about dating are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the fifth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!{Added in edit} No, we don't put deliberate and foolish lies in paleontology books. The imprints could not have been made after the sediments turned to stone, and the date we have is the date that it turned to stone or later. The imprints are as old as or older than the date we obtain for the rock.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-23-2004]

Well, he's not going to have any difficulty submerging ...

Your unsupported (and, as has been pointed out many times before with references, almost all false) claims about moon pools are irrelevant. Listing a few errors in or occasional problems with dating, especially in tests performed by dishonest creationists (and the evidence for this has been pointed out to you many times), is not support for your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the sixth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW!

Whatever's making one of his bald-faced lies. I know Snelling and Austin and Brown and their ilk do it all the time, but it's not a good practice.I know the Ark would sink with or without a moon pool; all a moon pool would do is speed things up.Wooden ships leak. Caulked with pitch, calked with silicone, caulked with anything; they leak.[This message has been edited by JonF, 04-24-2004]

Your made-up and lunatic ideas about dating and sediments are irrelevant. You have explained nothing. You have just made a series of idiotic claims, each more ludicrous than the last, none supported by any evidence whatsoever, and none consistent with reality. The only reason you have for beleiveing your claims is your inability ot accept reality. None of what you have postedsupports your claim that "The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old". Repeating your silly made-up fantasies does not make them any more real. Similarly, your refusal or inability to understand dating methods is not evidence for your claim. You are claiming that all dates are controlled and puposefully falsified with malicious intent by all people performing dating. Provide evidence for the universal and purposeful falsification of dates or retract your claim.You have repeated a serious charge of fraud, which you have made before and not supported. For the eighth time in this thread, support it with evidence, not your usual stream-of-consciousness bull, or retract it and never bring it up again. NOW! But I have evidence (and have presented it) for my contention thaqt you are deluded, ignorant, totally incorrect, and lying. All you have to support your claim that I and "the paleontologists" are lying is your hope that reality isn't true.

Yes. All of science is a theory. Absolutely. It's so because of the evidence.What you are doing is called "projection": "The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others". You believe your ideas because someone told you it's true (and you want to beleive them), and all you have offered in support of your ideas is "because I told you". Right. All we are able to do is get a date that is younger than the imprint. The imprint is as old as or older than the date we get. Not much help for your fantqasies.

No.I am saying that your interpretation of the Bible is in error.And I am saying that the Bible, a powerful and important document, is not a science textbook. Not quite. The problem is that Jon and others have demonstrated, with evidence, that your sources are liars ... but you are unable to face this reality. Your ignorance is showing again. You just made this fantasy up.

I should offer a small but interesting correction; I think you just mis-spoke a little. Dating the grains of the sediment the fossil is found in gives a false age, since the grains were formed long before the sedimentary rock formed.It is possible, though still fairly rare, to date some sedimentary rocks directly by dating the "glue" between the grains that forms when the rock lithifies; and these dates are valid. These kinds of techniques have been known for decades, but appropriate "glue" minerals (such as glauconite {greensand}) are rare and the available instrumentation often hasn't been up to the task and there are other problems. The development of Sensitive High Resolution Ion MicroProbes (SHRIMP), which can analyze incredibly tiny samples for uranium and lead content, and the recognition that diagenic xenotime is an appropriate "glue" mineral, may make direct dating of sedimentary rocks more comon. See U-Pb SHRIMP Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime, SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks, and Sediments Reveal Their Age (the last one requires a Sceince subscription).Also, sedimentary rocks can sometimes be dated directly by fission-track dating.However, the most common method of constraining the dates of sedimentary rocks is still dating of overlying and underlying igneous rocks.