O
Orogeny
Guest
Nor do they need to. If you understood the dating methods, you would understand that. But I completely understand why you would write that.
Peace
Tim
- Status
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
Tim,
Trees cannot survive intact and pass through many layers of rock supposedly representing thousands of years. They would have rotted away.
Peace,
E
Trees cannot survive intact and pass through many layers of rock supposedly representing thousands of years. They would have rotted away.
Peace,
E
O
Orogeny
Guest
You don’t know what you are talking about, but even so, it is totally irrelevant with regards to radiodating. But, as I said, if you understood the dating techniques, you wouldn’t have made such a claim to begin with.
Peace
Tim
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"mpartyka:
Could you tell me what methods are currently being used by geologists? I was aware of only one method of dating rocks.That’s why scientists often use several dating methods when identifying the ages of rocks. If more than one dating method returns similar results, you can be fairly sure the rock is the age indicated.
PEPCIS:
.
M
mpartyka
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
I have found that to be true in many cases. The meaning of key words changes to fit the argument. One evolutionist here on CAF said that was an example of “how language itself evolves”.
That’s a reasonable request, but even if they did that (which is unlikely) it would be an arbitrary decision to use one of the many conflicting definitions which are available.
This same thing happens throughout the body of ideas referred to as “the theory of evolution”. Eventually, one realizes that “the theory” has multiple forms and each defender of the same has his own personal version of it — accepting some parts, rejecting others, redefining things as he goes along, choosing someone as an “authority” for some things, and then rejecting the same “authority” for others (e.g. Dawkins).
Actually, does it remind us of a certain form of Christianity that emerged in the 16th century?
E
edwest2
Guest
No, it appears that this evidence was ignored on ideological grounds:
earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm
These fossilized trees exist and cut through supposedly thousands of years of rock.
Peace,
Ed
R
rossum
Guest
Not all layers of rock take thousands of years. A volcano can lay down different layers very quickly, as with Mount St. Helens. Floods can do the same sometimes. Most rock layers do take thousands of years to form, some do not.
rossum
M
mpartyka
Guest
I think you’re making the false assumption that, because scientists are in agreement that most sedimentary layers are laid down over long periods of time, these same scientists therefore believe that all sedimentary layers are laid down over long periods of time. This sounds to me like an “either-or” fallacy. In the few articles I’ve read on polystrate trees, scientists acknowledge that the layers of sediment in which the trees are found were laid down relatively quickly. But this says nothing about other types of sediments in other areas of the world.
–Mike
O
Orogeny
Guest
Let’s assume for a moment that this silly argument has merit. How does that invalidate Ar/Ar dating?
I know that you are trying real hard to change the subject and not answer my charge, but, really, you don’t know what you are talking about.
Peace
Tim
N
Namesake
Guest
No, really! When biologists discuss species they don’t go changing the definition other than to make specific adjustments to account for geographic or morphological necessities. You are very wrong in what you claim.
It was a simple observation. If you decide to make it into an attack on you as a person then that’s up to you. I did not mean it in that way at all.I knew that there would be an ad hominem sooner or later…
E
edwest2
Guest
“silly argument”? I presume you read the information. Invalidate Ar/Ar dating? A lot of assumptions have to be in place to make it work. No one’s observed planetary formation.
Peace,
Ed
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
According to what? If something can change genetically and geometrically according to environment and other factors, then we can at least know one fundamental truth. There is evidently a process of mutational change involved within living organisms; which is influenced by enviromental and genetic factors. It is therefore inevitable that many living organisms with the capacity to procreate, given vast periods of time, will give birth to relatively different geometric designs and qualities in respect to various environmental factors; which will also, in turn, branch off in to new kinds or species that will look completely different in comparison to the first generation. Wal-la. A new kind.
It follows logically from the premise of Micro-evolution.
Let me quickly note that the word “species” seems to me to be only a subjective term for an organism that greatly differs in its fundemental design according to its ancestral line of development. But however different we may be, we are all genetically related; we are all made of the same stuff. All biological organisms that are alive today, are in fact genetic variations of the first procreative organism.
The only reason people like you and Edwest are opposed to Evolution is because you have been deceived in to thinking that such and idea is necessarily a threat against Christianity. Otherwise you would accept it. Being a Yec would be a noble cause if it wasn’t founded upon false notions. This false hood has been caused by a poor understanding of Theology and the propaganda of naturalists. I really cannot blame scientists for not taking you seriously. I do however think that some Atheists distort evolution to suit there own ideology. But the theory as it stands, in up to date text books, only explains the geometric aspects of changing organisms; it does not explain the reality of quality. It doesn’t explain why there is such a thing as love, or why there is such a thing as self, beauty or even chemistry to begin with; since, when we ask these questions, we are necessarily dealing with a completely different sphere of knowledge, which can only be answered by the ultimate reality of things, rather then through the examination of any process in time. It is therefore beyond the grasp of empirical science. Only people with a poor understanding of physical causality, and logic, believe that science has all the answers. A smart person could in fact create a good philosophical argument for the existence of a Designer using evolution as its foundation. But since you are so busy trying to refute evolution, such things will never occur to you.
How unfortunate.
As for Christian theology, I think that Christian theology is consistent with the idea of an evolving universe; history is not with out worthy theologians who believed and accepted that God achieved his desired ends through natural processes. For example, Aquinas’s five proofs for God, all presuppose a natural order of secondary causes, which are all ultimately aimed at a desired end. Such theologians might not have conceived of evolution as such, but they were not blood thirsty fundamentalists. Some people dispute that Augustine was an evolutionist but he certainly didn’t take a Yec point of view when reading the bible. I see no problem with evolution until you start claiming that the Bible is a science book that must judge all other sciences.
What a shame that we keep making this same error; haven’t we learned from Galileo?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Someone tested that recently. They submitted a bit of material from the eruption that buried Pompeii (we know the date precisely) without disclosing what it was.
Although the procedure is intended for material millions of years old, the lab got it right.
berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Yep. Science works that way. Even when there is almost complete acceptance of a theory, you still see a lot of different ideas about the details of the theory. It’s that way in biology, and every other science I know about.
Authority, in science, is not very impressive. Results count. So if a well-respected scientist goes off with something that looks very odd, people tend to not accept it until some evidence can be shown. Personal reputation counts, but if you can’t deliver, reputation won’t help much.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Just as I thought, there is only one method of dating rocks - Radiometric Dating. There may be several isotopes which are considered when performing a radiometric dating, but they all fall under the rubric “Radiometric.”
Thanks for the link.
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Radiometric dating methods (including isochronic) are rife with subjectiveness, though they are touted as “objective.” You can witness the subjective difficulties in this article on Ar/Ar dating.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Typical Ed. Won’t (can’t) actually respond to the challenge. Planetary formation, Ed? That has what to do with radiodating? Same old dodging the issue.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Did you read the document? Clearly not. You ought to try it. It is a very good article written by a Christian.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
If you can understand that article, you should have no trouble with the Weins article. You should read it.
The article you linked to is a good illustration of how the method works. One cannot just pick up a rock and analyze it and expect to get valid results. Proper sampling, analysis and interpretation of the results is necessary. That is true with any analytical technique and wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who has ever been exposed to chemstry.
Peace
Tim
- Status