Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 26/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark
JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 10 of 303 (100626)
04-17-2004 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
04-17-2004 7:02 PM


Thanks for the links, I am reading them at the moment
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 7:02 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 04-17-2004 9:42 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 303 (101809)
04-22-2004 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by johnfolton
04-21-2004 9:15 PM


Re: just curious why
The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by johnfolton, posted 04-21-2004 9:15 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 11:03 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 303 (101828)
04-22-2004 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 11:03 AM


Re: just curious why
The paleontologists have the dating methods rigged so all imprinted fossils will date old
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 11:03 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 11:30 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 45 of 303 (101855)
04-22-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 11:30 AM


Re: just curious why
JonF, If not the paleontologists, then who rigged the unscientific principle of dating the image, by the sediments, etc...
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.
Would it not be more correct to say its not possible to accurately date the image by the sediments, and that the fossil imprint could of happened recently, like a tire imprint.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 11:30 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 4:25 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 51 of 303 (101989)
04-22-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 4:25 PM


Re: just curious why
JonF, I see you have no problem calling Snelling, Austin, Brown liars
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.
Perhaps you even consider Ron Wyatt a liar
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.
but have a problem where someone sees a problem in dating an imprint's age by the sediments, or a decomposed imprint image of insects, bird, fish, by the sediments, I'm not a YEC so too me a problem exists with the age of the fossil imprints matching up with the age of the sediments
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!
You probably discount Humpheys excess helium because there is other age factors in the granites
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 4:25 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 10:43 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 55 of 303 (102161)
04-23-2004 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by johnfolton
04-22-2004 10:43 PM


Re: just curious why
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 04-22-2004 10:43 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 303 (102163)
04-23-2004 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 10:16 AM


Re:
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.
Snelling didn't actually see the site, see first hand what Ron saw.
Not necessary. The information we have is sufficient to evaluate Wyatt's claims.
{Added in edit}
All bones should be tested by the advanced C-14 dating if any carbon exists
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 12:23 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 60 of 303 (102181)
04-23-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by johnfolton
04-23-2004 12:23 PM


Re:
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}
Perhaps we should rewrite paleontology 101, and have a footnote, that its not conclusive that the fossil imprints are actually old as the sediments, and that imprinted fossil could be quite young.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 04-23-2004 12:23 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 67 of 303 (102388)
04-24-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
04-23-2004 10:50 PM


Re: Part Submarine ? or part troll.
You are going to have openings in the bottom of the boat and make it behave like a submarine
Well, he's not going to have any difficulty submerging ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2004 10:50 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 11:35 AM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 70 of 303 (102416)
04-24-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 11:35 AM


Re:
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 11:35 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 4:52 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 71 of 303 (102421)
04-24-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 11:35 AM


Re:
JonF's making one of his little fibs, he knows the ark wouldn't sink with a moon pool (we've discussed this before)
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 11:35 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Buzsaw, posted 04-24-2004 7:08 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 73 of 303 (102438)
04-24-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 4:52 PM


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!
I say your lying to yourself, and you say I'm lying when I believe your being lied to
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 4:52 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2004 7:18 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 7:31 PM JonF has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 83 of 303 (102574)
04-25-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by johnfolton
04-24-2004 7:31 PM


Remember toe is just a theory
Yes. All of science is a theory.
just because they tell you its true, doesn't make it so,
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".
because they are not able to date the imprint itself
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 04-24-2004 7:31 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by johnfolton, posted 04-25-2004 1:47 PM JonF has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 91 of 303 (102628)
04-25-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by johnfolton
04-25-2004 4:43 PM


Re: The fossil imprint's missing!
is not Jon saying to me that the bible is a lie
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.
The problem is that Jon calls all my sources liars
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.
All my sources have Ph-d's in the sciences The paleontologists by saying you can date a fossil imprint age accurately, by the sediments are simply decieving themselves
Your ignorance is showing again. You just made this fantasy up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by johnfolton, posted 04-25-2004 4:43 PM johnfolton has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 92 of 303 (102631)
04-25-2004 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Trixie
04-25-2004 5:18 PM


Re: The fossil imprint's missing!
dating the sediment the fossil is found in gives a false age. Boy, you're sure on the ball with that one! Isn't it a good job then, that fossils aren't dated by dating the sediment they're in? You see, the fatal flaw in dating the sedimentthe fossil is in has been known about for eons AND THAT'S WHY THE BLEEDIN' PALEONTOLOGISTS DON'T SODDING WELL DO IT THAT WAY!!!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Trixie, posted 04-25-2004 5:18 PM Trixie has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024