Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open Challenge: Evidence of a Young Earth
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 4 of 42 (48124)
07-31-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by The General
07-31-2003 2:58 AM


Re: A young Earth.
I don't know about the oil pressure but both your other arguments rely on ignoring well known facts (in the first case the archaeological record showing that humans existed for a long time prior to the great civilisations - in the second case the fact that populations only grow exponentially given unlimited resources - as well as historical population data).
To use those arguments ass then assert that a well-established method - carbon dating - is a joke - well, you really ought to learn some facts befre join a thread like this which asks for the BEST arguments for a young Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by The General, posted 07-31-2003 2:58 AM The General has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by The General, posted 07-31-2003 3:43 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 07-31-2003 10:42 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 6 of 42 (48132)
07-31-2003 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by The General
07-31-2003 3:43 AM


Re: A young Earth.
I'm not here to convince by pretending to have knowledge that I do not. And that doesn't change the fact that both your other arguments are obviously wrong to anyone with any knowledge of the subject - therefore it is entirely appropriate for me to point out that you should learn what you are talking about. Your claims about carbon dating, are equally uninformed. I suggest you go away and study the real facts instead of making assertions in ignorance of reality.
I also notice that you have apparently started two threads with what appears to be material cut and pasted from another source without attribution - which would be less than entirely honest unless you were the original author - and is against the forum rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by The General, posted 07-31-2003 3:43 AM The General has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 39 of 42 (49319)
08-08-2003 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
08-07-2003 8:23 PM


No, this is not a good argument.
Although other conditions can inhibit decay (such as the anoxic conditions found at the bottom of some lakes), and some fossils aremore resistant to decay than others, the biggest problem is that it assumes that there is a single rate for deposition.
In fact some beds can be deposited very rapidly, but others are deposited very slowly - and geologists can tell which. Moreover we need to distinguish between the AVERAGE rate and the PEAK rate. If, a rare event drops a relatively large amount of sediment that represents a high PEAK rate of deposition - but the average rate would still be much lower. The average rate is needed to work out the age - but the average rate does not need to be high enough to produce fossils - so long as that rate is sometimes reached.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 08-07-2003 8:23 PM mike the wiz 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