News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Since we seem to be pasting other people's posts with no obligation to comment on them ourselves, I will let the following response from a user of a different forum suffice as a response to the above. I, however, am happy to answer any questions about it and provide further information if requested to. Bold emphasis mine. Strange but true.

******

I've read and reread that article, and I am absolutely stupefied. I'm still not sure I've understood it correctly, because if I have, it's hard for me to believe that someone with anything more than a brainstem in their cranium could commit such an obviously moronic argument to print.

What Woodmorappe is saying is that the "complete geological column" does not exist anywhere on earth. How does he define the complete geologic column? Simple. The thickness of a given sedimentary layer will vary from location to location based on factors such as the initial degree of sedimentation, and subsequent processes such as erosion which act to reduce the thickness of the layer. However, for each layer there will be somewhere on earth where the thickness of that layer will be the greatest. It still may not be "complete", in that it will not contain sediments from every single day of the earth's existence since that layer was laid down. However, it will contain sediments from more days than any other site on earth.

So what would satisfy Woodmorappe's criteria for a complete column? A single area where the thickness of every single layer was the greatest of anywhere on earth. Now does it surprise you that this does not exist? It would be surprising, in fact absolutely shocking, if it did. To meet his criteria, the same particular area of earth would have to have conditions that favoured the development of thick rock layers, more than any other area of earth, for hundreds of millions of years! What are the odds of that happening? Close to non-existent. As Morton puts it in the article I linked:




The article you linked is supposedly a response to Morton's. You reread it and tell us if you think it addresses the above refutation in any way. Again, it absolutely astounds me that so many words could have been wasted making an argument that is so obviously false. But I think the wordiness is part of the strategy. I bet you not one person who finds that article persuasive could actually explain its argument in their own words. They just know it's written by someone who seems to be some sort of scientist, it contains a lot of big words and fancy diagrams, and the author concludes that geological evidence supports the existence of a Global Flood. For them, that's enough to support their belief that there is scientific evidence of the Flood.

The only question in my mind is whether Woodmorappe and his like are deluding themselves, or if they are just common hucksters.

I'd been wondering about the claim for some time. One only encounters it in the second-rate propaganda (of course it's repeated by those who treasure such), and it's proven a slippery critter to investigate. A tip of the hat to John Woodmorappe for tracking down & uprooting the scam.

Unfortunately he's as clueless as you on that topic. For those who don't know, the Phanerozoic eon spans from the Cambrian onward, during which time multicellular life on earth has proliferated.

U/Pb dating of zircon
TEMORA 1: a new zircon standard for Phanerozoic U–Pb geochronology

Pb dating of zircon
Precise determination of Phanerozoic zircon Pb/Pb age

And a good detailed article about how the geologic column is dated. Of particular interest are 15.10 Dating sedimentary rocks, and 15.11 The geological timescale. Here you can read about the various ways that scientists date layers. Of course, Woodmorappe has omitted what is IMO the most obvious one: you can have igneous layers below and above sedimentary deposits. Radiometric dates for those will give you boundaries for the age of the sedimentary layers.

Given his qualifications, I wonder why Woodmorappe doesn't mention these things, as he must be aware of them. Strange, don't you think?

You also have not addressed the heart of his argument, mentioned in my post above. If you think you can lend some logic to it then you are welcome to try.

For those who don't know, fossils of lifeforms aren't generally associated with non-Phanerozoic systems.

Oh my! We all so dumb & uninformbud we hadn't done none of us heard of no such evodate stuffs before. Where come you to find such overstonishing uptech thingys? We just alls thoughts "radiometric dating" was on the AM/FM Tram-Sister how to pick up chicks but couldn't never make it works for usses.

You must've missed the point that we're talking about the places that allegedly contain the "entire geological column". How evodates were obtained elsewhere isn't a concern here.

Now shoo! This thread doesn't need to be cluttered up with off-topic propaganda. We know you love your evodates, and I can list plenty of the methods by which they're obtained. One should also appreciate what an expensive undertaking it can be, when test after test after test must be run until the desired result is achieved. (I chuckle to think how many swift kicks those expensive machines must endure when frustration takes its toll.)

Here is an article which rebuts Woodmorappe's claims in more detail. I recommend a read of the information about the geologic column -- what it is, and how creationists tend to misrepresent it.



These links are from articles in scientific journals describing particular ways of obtaining precise dates for sedimentary rocks. I also cited the method of dating igneous rocks above and below sedimentary layers. Maybe you can attempt to make some kind of intelligible point about this which includes evidence on your part.



I'm not sure why you seem to think that the methods for dating the geologic column in one area should be any different than those used for dating it in another. The methods have been cited and if you want to question them you need to present your evidence here.



This is how science is done -- by testing. I cited some abstracts for Russ where four or more different dating methods correlated to give a precise geological age.

We have been debating for quite some time now and I habitually have to ask you to back your comments up with evidence, which you rarely do. You must realise that jeering, which is just about all your previous post consists of, doesn't make a good case for you.

What it is is a misrepresentation. Old news.

But I did start to take a look. Ran smack into a bunch of "paleosol" hype & gave up. "Paleosols" are a pretty dubious interpretation even by evolutionist standards. Not the kind of thing one makes a conclusive case out of.
Are you bluffing, or do you truly not know that there is no grand universal worldwide survey evodating all rocks everywhere using every method.

There are lots and lots of places and layers that have never been dated. When a fossil is found, why do you think they try to date the location? If it's already been done and rechecked by the grand universal worldwide survey, dating it over again is just a waste of time and a whole lot of money. Most of the time, they run the tests because no test has been done before at that location.

The primary method used to this day is still to date the rocks by fossil content. You can't even name a layer any other way, and expect it to stick. If a layer contains "Triassic" fossils, that's the label it gets, and it matters not what any other method says.

You list a couple of evodating methods, and expect folks to just assume they've been used on the locations in question? And further assume they got the "right" dates on every one of the "layers"? No dice, at least with me.

Now if you have a source that conducted surveys in these areas, using the methods you advocate, let's see it.

(And different methods are used in different places; that's one of the first things one learns about evodates. If one studies the topic.)
Real science employs blind testing. Labs are not informed what outcome is desired. Evodating can't do that, can they? I really wish they would - now that'd make for some funny readin'.

I think it'd be a lot harder to explain if the results didn't match, when the labs are told in advance what's expected. Something tells me labs that prove "incompetent" at meeting expectations would see business going to the competition.
I've backed up plenty. This is not a good time for you to talk, bringing in generic evodate propaganda when the question of dating specific locations is being discussed. We have a thread or two around here on evodates. Do you need a link?

By the way, does your link address anything at all in the article we're discussing? I don't plan to waste my time if it's what it appears to be: run-of-the-mill badmouthing.

What is, exactly? Why don't you prove you read at least part of the article and state your specific disagreement. Do you object to the definition of the geologic column, or . . . ?



No, paleosols are quite real, as a quick Google will show you. Maybe you can explain why you think they are "hype."



Apart from the obvious impossibility of dating every single rock layer across the entire earth, why do you think there's a need? I think maybe there's a misunderstanding here about the geologic column itself. If you look at the geologic column are of the EvC forum, a perusal of the first few posts there will give an accessible outline of what the geologic column is and how fossils fit into it. More importantly for this discussion, perhaps, is information about how the relationships of strata across the world were established well before Darwin was born. Later more technologically-advanced dating methods corroborated these established relationships. The first geologists to study the geologic column had no knowledge of evolution and therefore it was impossible for them to have any desire to fiddle the figures in order to make things fit. They did their science based on what they observed.

If you truly do not understand how geologists recognise different rock layers, have a Google. The information would fill several books. Layers of questionable provenance are dated and the usual practice is to use more than one method in order to be precise. There are also well-studied groups of index fossils that can help, and I've linked to some other methods such as dating zircon. What would help this discussion is if you were able to cite a specific example that you believe proves your point about dates being wrong.

To address your comments about dates not correlating, or being forced somehow to do so, I suggest you read the first page or so of Correlation among various radiometric ages on the EvC forum. As you know, there are scientists and other experts who talk there, and they present the information in small easy-to-read chunks (usually). There's a link there to one of RAZD's pages about the correlation of disparate dates using different methods on different substances around the world. Your task here, if you disbelieve such things, is to give evidence for why they are not so.



Well, I linked to two refutations of the article. I don't normally tell someone to go read a link and take the time themselves to refute the entire thing but that seems to be usual practice here. Both refutations explain how Woodmorappe's original premise is nonsense, and I will repeat the first quote I gave which sums it up nicely (bold emphasis mine):



You have consistently failed to address this.

There is a feature found in the rocks. That this feature is the result of soil becoming fossilized is not a clear conclusion; it is disputed, dismissed, or ignored altogether even by many, perhaps most, evolutionist geologists.

I never said I thought there was a need. You claim that the evodate methods in your links are relevant & you claim the same methods are used everywhere.

Either those methods have been used in the locations under discussion in this thread, or they're irrelevant. I'd ask "which is it?", but by now the answer's too all-fired obvious.
That's what you think? Well I think this thread has a topic, and it's not bulk propaganda. If you think zircon evodates are the ultimate, why not start a thread about zircon evodates?

What? Can't you type enough propaganda yourself? I've seen the quality of their product before; it didn't impress me much.

You're not the one who assigns my tasks. Next time, try to wake up next time before posting.

Consistently? How consistently? And why should I address what's already covered?

John Woodmorappe did mention ad hoc reasons (commonly & more accurately called "lame excuses") offered by defenders of the "column". This one's even more pathetic than the example he gave. Present-day erosion rates would leave us with no "column" to speak of at all. (However, erosion would be expected to leave evidence like riverbeds, or even canyons if you buy all evostories. These aren't found where "needed".)

Now anytime deposition rates are said to decrease, people, please remember the implications for polystrate fossils. Positing that a carcass remained undisturbed for 20,000 years is pretty absurd to begin with. Changing the story so the carcass had to remain undisturbed for 190,000 doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me. Okay, it's a little funnier I suppose...

Paleosol formation is a geological process, just like erosion or uplift. Do you have a specific example to cite or are you just wishing this formation out of existence?



Dating methods

Look up any rock formation and you can find scientific papers about how it's been dated. I looked up information about the Williston Basin, which is the area in North Dakota where the geologic column is complete. As you'd expect, there are radiometric dates of igneous deposits, index fossils and zircon analysis of sediment -- that's just a quick Google and there are probably more. For any sedimentary rock deposit you would also apply relative dating principles. You will recall what I said about geologists long before Darwin's birth observing these relationships in rocks around the world, and subsequent absolute dating methods confirming them. It would therefore have been impossible for them to have any desire to fiddle the figures in order to support evolutionary theory, as creationists often claim scientists do.

You seem to be dancing around this topic rather regularly without citing any examples where you think the geologic column is out of order or the dating methods are incorrect. What you seem to be presenting is an argument from incredulity, which will not stand up very well against scientific data.



I cited it as an absolute (as opposed to relative) dating method for sedimentary rock. You seem to be wishing it out of existence like the paleosols and more or less everything else you've been talking about.



It's just that the one page I asked you to read gives quite a lot of data which refutes your comments about dating methods not correlating. If you don't want to look at my links that's your choice but so far you have given zero evidence for your own ideas.



Because you haven't addressed it at all and it's only been covered by me. For the third time (at least), to add up the maximum sedimentation in each geologic period and then expect that that represents the entire geologic column is perverse. Remember the analogy of uneven snowfall in different regions. This is the heart of Woodmorappe's argument, it's nonsense, and you seem to be unwilling or unable to try to show otherwise.



You seem to be forgetting that new land forms in rift zones and that as mountains erode, new ones are formed when plates collide. The Himalayas are currently still rising at measurable rates each year.



Evidence please.



Am I right in understanding from this that you think rates of deposition are the same across the earth? Sounds like Woodmorappe again. Yes, scientists understand that polystrate fossil formation includes rapid deposition, though in many cases the formation is more complex than that. And no, this does not mean that this rate of deposition is constant across the earth.

I invite you to crack open a basic geology book or do some internet research CTD. You will then be able to look at the arguments of people like Woodmorappe with an educated eye.

I said there was a feature. Can you not read?

So you now sound like you want to claim the methods were used. What prevents you from presenting the dates you discovered? Would that be too much like making an on-topic post? Is it against your principles or something?

What I'm doing is sticking to the topic. You're the one cheerleading for evodates in general. I've done discussed evodates before. Where were you?

You seem to be wishing it on-topic. Wishing won't make it so. People can scroll up and see how you tried to pretend it was relevant.

I see you have no idea what constitutes a refutation.

It's ad hoc bunkola. They can't honestly address his real-deal assessment of their nonsense, and they come up with cheap shots that actually target themselves.

It was evolutionists made up all this "one inch equals x million years" stuff in the first place. I guess you "conveniently" forget those facts when it suits you to do so, but do not assume the rest of us to be easily fooled. I hate to think I could fall for such lame nonsense if I tried my very best.

Now look at what these ninnies are claiming: everywhere else in the world, we have our evolutionist rates of "1 inch - x million years" working just fine. But wherever "the whole column is present", those places just happened to get super-duper ultra slow rates of deposition. Ever heard of special pleading? That's the problem with ad hoc nonsense. And the lovers of anything-but-the-truthism just gobble it up. It's candy to 'em.
Evidence please. Me already no, but me sees how dish game work now, so me ask anyhows.

I invite you to stop play-acting anytime. It's all just a junior high school popularity contest with you guys, ain't it? Just put on a show, and pretend as hard as you can. I'm a grown man. I live in a real world, okay? Pretend games are for CHILDREN. They're very unbecoming even for teenagers, I would add.

You said that the "feature" being fossilised soil is "disputed." I don't know of any geologists who dispute the existence of paleosols. If you have an example of something identified as a paleosol that you find doubtful, please cite it.



OK . . . the Williston basin is large and underlies North Dakota and parts of other states and Canada; the places cited below are different part of it.

Hell Creek, paleomagnetism -- took 1.05-1.90 million years to form.

Williston basin in southeastern Montana, fission track and paleomagnetic dating -- reversed polarities yield dates of more than 700,000 years ago (the time of the most recent magnetic field reversal).

Fort Union formation, palynologic and radiometric dating confirm sequencing of strata in lower, middle and upper paleocene -- 65.5-55.8 million years ago.

Palynology uses fossil pollen, spores, microfossils, particulate organic matter and kerogen to date sedimentary rocks.

Sorry, can't find the U-Pb zircon article I'd read the other day.

I have spent a lot of time looking at websites for the Williston basin and it's obviously a well-studied area, partly because it has oil reserves. All of the data correlates with the geologic column as expected.

Now maybe you can give one single example of a place where you think the geologic column is out of order.



This thread is about the geologic column. You can't discuss that without discussing how the layers are dated.

"Evodates" is your personal vague term. Maybe you can link me to where else in the forum you have given evidence about how the dates for the geologic column are wrong.



Zircon U-Pb dating is as relevant as other dating methods when we are discussing the geologic column.



Again --


Woodmorappe is claiming that the geologic column is incomplete because there is no place on earth containing all of the thickest sedimentary deposits from all of the ages in the earth's history. The above quote compares this to snowfall. Because Antarctica receives so little snow, does that mean its snow cover is "incomplete" as opposed to that of Vail? You'll note that snow falls at different rates across the world. Similarly, sediment is deposited at different rates, and in some places there are stretches of time where it is not deposited at all (such as the present-day Canadian Shield).

If a geologist were looking at one inch of sediment from a recent flood, it's nonsense to suggest that they would say "an inch equals a million years."



That the Himalayas are building up? It's been measured by people and by satellites. You might as well ask me for evidence that the tide comes in.

Geology of the Himalayan Mountains

You would make a great politician, Linda, but only to those who have lost their ability to discern.

The article I posted stands on its own and you have not effectively refuted a single point of it.

There is no geologic column. None.

The geologic column is a concept invented to attempt to convince a naive public that evolution is credible.

Your response to this article reminds me of the time I took 2 days off from work to watch the entire Clinton impeachment hearings. It was an astounding landmark event.

After the event, two news anchors (one was Peter Jennings, now deceased), lied about what had just happened.

Yes, you heard me correctly, they lied. They spun (which is the same as lying). And they lied more and more.

After listening to their spin of the event I had just watched, I actually began questioning myself, asking if I had missed something. Perhaps they were commenting on different event.

But no! I didn't miss anything. I watched the entire event from start to finish.

The fact is, they lied. They lied for damage control.

For those who were unable to see the entire event -- which included most people -- these liars made it sound like the entire event was a political charade to pick on Clinton, when in fact, Clinton broke laws and was worthy of impeachment.

This is exactly what you do.

You read an article that has integrity and then put your spin on it -- lie about it -- in order to push your own agenda.

I truly wish you could come up with some good argument that I could congratulate you for. I wish I would say, "Well Linda, you make some good points. Let me look into that."

Instead, your claims are just more of the same propagandic disinformation that continued use circular reasoning, false evidence, and big words to make them "feel" convincing to those who's consciences are so far gone that they are unable to discern truth from personal desire.

I'm not convinced Linda. Please, give me something to chew on rather than political, emotionally-based, propaganistic dribble.

Please.

I said the interpretation was dubious. Apparently your evosickness has advanced to the stage that you are no longer able to distinguish a thing from the interpretation thereof. This is a golden opportunity for you do diagnose the illness yourself and seek help. Surely you recall a time when you were able to make these distinctions, right? And now you can't. That should tell you something.

It's a big job; don't rush. Your haste is already evident, as a matter of fact.

This link of yours said
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18623732

Evodates obtained by doing the very thing the ad hoc complaint invented for the purpose of smearing Woodmorappe says shouldn't ever be done. Oh well... This is how evolutionists always did it before, and apparently the word hasn't got out that they need to stop and pretend they never did it.

I am not so sloppy a reader as to think you've made a scratch on the piece Woodmorappe wrote. Perhaps you should take another look, and see what he actually said. I have a hunch you still haven't read it yourself, but chose to rely on false second-hand accounts instead.

Which layers? The ones we're talking about, or all layers ever evodated?


Here's one thread.
http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=39400#Post39400
Oh? Define 'recent'.

Ah well, we all know the truth of the matter. We know quite well who says this stuff all the time. You can go to several places and have government-sponsored tour guides repeat the same evobabble. Guess Woodmorappe got around to what? Hypnotizing them all? No, I shouldn't even guess at what you think. It's funnier to just be taken by surprise.

You half get the point; the other half posted a link. When does the "define every term in every sentence" phase of the game begin?

Yet you have continually failed to give an example to support your claim.



It also said:


Paleomagnetism uses reversals of the earth's magnetic field to date rocks.



I've summarised his argument succinctly for you and told you why it's nonsense. If you want me to spell it out more obviously then I can.



Here is the gist of his argument that in the locations where the geologic column is complete, the sedimentary layers "aren't thick enough." I have now explained the silliness of this premise six ways to Sunday.



Which is also nonsense. He does not give a single specific example presumably because he knows that anyone could look up research on the area and find out that it has indeed been dated by a variety of means. Like I did.

You also seem to be ignoring what I've told you at least twice now -- that the relationships between layers in the geologic column were established long before Darwin. There was no reason for them to incorporate wishful thinking or any other such silliness into their research.



Thanks for linking to that, I'd forgotten about it. But I've been reading up on some of the issues discussed there and this has helped me understand them better. RAZD made quite an apt comment:



To add to that, you've linked to the thread here in an apparent attempt to show readers how cleverly you refuted the science there because you believe that's what you really did. In reality, what you did (as you are doing here and in the Flood thread) is demonstrate your lack of knowledge of maths, geology, physics, mineralogy, quantum physics, etc. I don't see much reason to continue these discussions if you are unwilling to learn some basic science.

Your information is well written, but faulty to the core.

Here is something just for you.



If you have any disagreements with any information in this video, please point them out.

The "Fossil Record" is a Fabrication


More stuff, just for you Linda...

Watching the first couple of minutes of the first video should be enough to show anyone who knows the first thing about geology that Hovind is full of baloney.

I could paste links to lots of videos, too, that refute creationist claims. I don't do this because I'd rather engage directly with discussions here, show that I understand something of what I'm talking about, and have the grace not to expect anyone to spend hours refuting a link that took me 5 seconds to post. If you could do the same I would appreciate it. How about showing that you yourself understand what Hovind is talking about, and give a piece of his evidence about the geologic column not existing -- mind that it doesn't contradict the evidence already presented here.

So, what exactly is wrong with Hovind's position.

I find it very accurate and inkeeping with established science.

Take your pick...

What's wrong is that he doesn't understand the first thing about the geologic column or how it was established and dated in the past and the present. If you read this thread before asking questions like this you'd get some idea of why. If you'd like me to carry on the discussion with you then please pick what you think Hovind's most pertinent point is and state it.

I think all of his points are pertinent.

I think he knows as well as I do how gullible people are. They simply believe what they're told to believe.

The real irony is that evolutionists are the first to blame others -- i.e. Christians -- of doing the same, when they, in fact, have been the most faithful of all to their own religion.

Hovind makes many great points.

Hovind has been proven many times not to know what he is talking about. My guess is that in his video he does not tell you that the geologic column (including the sedimentary layers) has been dated by many absolute methods that correlate; that he makes general comments with no evidence to back them up; that he misrepresents science to people who wouldn't know any better; and that he doesn't tell you about how relationships between layers in the geologic column were established before Darwin -- I saw briefly that he's picked on one person to try to heckle when there were others before him who did more important work in that area.

By refusing to summarise even one of his points and instead making comments like those above, you also show that you do not understand what he is trying to talk about.

See here:
http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=52146#Post52146

This is not true.

What is true is that there have been many attempts to discredit him because the information he exposes presents a very real threat to the evolution religion.



The problem here is that we are getting bad research.

The pharmaceutical companies are well known to produce "studies" that are designed with an predetermined outcome in mind.

They also produce epidemiological studies that look good prima facie, but upon examination, the real agenda becomes obvious.

And herein lies the problem. There is indeed an agenda.

We see evidence of this agenda when good people are willing to come out and expose the agenda. You will find example after example of this type of behavior from large institutions that are supposedly scientific on the New Now forum:

http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=128&page=1

Similarly, Anthropologists, paleontologists, and those in related fields come out from time to time and expose that your statement is not true, that is, that multiple methods are not used to correlate the age of fossils.

Instead we learn that numbers are tweaked, but more often simply made up so they fit the desired outcome.

When you have so my lying going on in today's world, we are forced to do our own homework to find out which "side" has more credibility.

I have done my homework and found that the "side" exposing the false dating numbers has more credibility.

Unfortunately, this homework takes times and is too lengthy to post here, so I must resort to the next most effective method, posting links to other articles, which I will do now.

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html



http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm
(These below contain referenced studies below)



You will note that as we study this subject, the "conventional mainstream" viewpoint is littered with contradictions and inconsistencies.

This is only scratching the surface, while further research shows that great liberties, in fact, outright lies are fabricated to attempt to make evolution look credible by falsely supporting the "geologic column" myth.

I know it's hard to believe and it's difficult to accept, but there are people with agendas in powerful positions that control information in ways we don't want to face.

This is blatantly true in the medical industry, financial industry, and a little study shows the same is true in the study of evolution.



It is truly amazing that you conclude that I do not know what he is talking about because I don't summarize his points.

As I've said previously, I don't take the time to do this because it is more efficient to allow onlookers of these debates to read this information from referenced, reviewed sources online.

My real goal is to expose the truth to people who want it, and I have received comments from people thanking me for my work in this forum demonstrating the corruption that exists in the promotion of the evolution myth.

Just as mercury-filled fillings were pushed because there was an agenda, evolution is also promoted because a faith in evolution facilitates certain societal conditions that make the socialization of existing countries and cultures possible.

Evolution is the foundation of humanism. It is written into the Humanist Manifesto, and this no mistake.

Communism is also decidedly evolution-based.

Freedom and personal responsibility are Biblical-Christian concepts that powerbrokers do no like and have been fighting long before they -- the powerbrokers -- instituted the crusades.

Linda, you are on the evil side of history. You need to let go of your idols and revisit your research.

You often accuse Christians of blindly accepting what they are told and that you perform real research. In reality, the exact opposite is true.


"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."

—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

So to remind you of an earlier discussion -- when he revealed that he thinks the sun burns by combustion, and it was pointed out that he was incorrect, this was an "attempt to discredit him"?



Again I must ask if you have read the rest of this thread. CTD wanted dates for a complete section of the geologic column. I posted several for the Williston Basin which included radiometric, paleomagnetic, and zicron U-Pb (also known as diagenetic xenotime, which is a way of dating a sedimentary layer). I think the scientists who published those articles in scientific journals would not be so convinced by your offhand assertion that it is all "bad research." Feel free to pick one of these methods to illustrate how it is invalid.

For more about dating methods being consistent, read:
Consistent Radiometric Dates

For the Fen Complex in Norway, there are 8 consistent dates, produced by different dating methods and samples.

On the subject of the Grand Canyon, there is a long and detailed thread about it here. You will find information in that thread about uplift and various dating methods.



Fossils are not used in any of the dating processes mentioned or linked to above, nor are they necessary. I'd abandon this old claim if I were you.



Yet you have so far not presented any evidence here that the geologic column is a myth, nor have you been able to falsify any of the information I have presented which shows it is a reality.



So if I did the same, we'd each just be posting videos all over the place here with no obligation for us to understand them or even watch them. Don't you think God gave us a brain for us to use? I think there's psychological stuff going on here that you either don't realise or are consciously employing in order to avoid having a proper debate, but I'll give you credit for attempting to find some evidence in your previous post.



I'm not surprised. When people believe in something strongly and aren't willing to question it, then naturally they will want to cheer on whoever champions their cause, no matter how faulty their logic or meagre their evidence.



Bunkum. The change in organisms over time has nothing to do with these things, whatever spin people want to put on it, you or anyone else. I'll let you carry on this discussion with Linear elsewhere because this thread is about the geologic column.

Curiously, evolution and the formation of the geologic column carry on, oblivious to your accusations of evil and nonexistence.

Is that the best you can do to "discredit" Hovind?

Very weak. Very weak indeed.

He most certainly was using a simple, generic word in a context that has nothing to do with technically describing how the sun works.

It's like me saying, "My car is running."

You should know that I don't mean literally "running".

Linda, this is poor.



I'm not speaking about dating methods being invalid, although a good argument has been made by many credible scientists that they are bad. I am speaking at to their integrity in reporting the research.

Your argument is so bad on its face that people may ask themselves what they are missing.

They are not missing anything. There is no geologic column.

They have constructed the concept of a geologic column myth by selecting sites they like. Then they just throw out all the information that doesn't fit their desired model.

Again, this is not science. It is mythology and storytelling.

This is the way the world really works. It's important that people don't simply blindly accept what they are taught and told.

Test it. Ask questions. Do research. Don't have blind faith in what people tell you.



This is how it is being taught in textbooks. Hovind provides visual evidence of this. I've see it myself.

This false information in the textbooks is an artifact of the agenda that is behind the promotion of evolution.

Let's keeps things in context Linda.



Yes I have.



You really crack me up.

I just get such a kick out of debating with you.



Well said.



I am again laughing.

Have you ever read the Humanist Manifesto?

Do you have any knowledge about the subject your are using the word "Bunkum" in response to?

You are amazing.

Just keep it coming Linda.

Jeering -- politer than CTD's but the same tactic nonetheless -- does not change the fact that:



This time you have made no attempt to use any evidence at all. I was hoping that the post before that was the beginning of a new trend.



Sorry but no.
From a website that's right up your street (bold my emphasis):




In case that isn't enough evidence for you, here's another example from astronomy. From his 1995 seminar:



He doesn't know that radioactive decay keeps the earth warm and that tidal stress heating keeps other bodies in the solar system warm.

You believe the words of this scientific ignoramus over meticulous research published in journals by people who have been educated in their specialisms for years and do this stuff every day.



Let me make a guess: you will not explain why here, because you know that I will pick apart their claims. Though you're welcome to have a try because otherwise you are simply continuing your slander against the scientific community.



Then explain why my dating links are incorrect. You are ignoring them. Tell me one place where you think the column doesn't exist as scientists would expect it to.



You will find no claim of "fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils" in textbooks. I have shown you clearly here that this is incorrect, most obviously so. What he was probably showing you is relative dating methods, which are used along with absolute dating methods, though no doubt he conveniently omitted the latter.



A predictable reply, though we'll let the readers judge who is offering faulty logic and meagre evidence. You have made no attempt to address my links here and are talking as if that information doesn't exist. Is that logical?

Finally to repeat my previous comment, the changes in organisms over time are simply what they are, and they can be observed in the fossil record. Any concept can be misunderstood or abused. People have done the same in the past with the Bible yet you don't dismiss it because of their beliefs or actions.

Actually, I have.

I simply have not done it on your terms:

No videos,
No external links,
Must rewrite all information in your own words on this forum.

Sorry sister.

I gave you the truth. If you reject it, it nobody's fault but your own.


As far as the rest of your arguments go...

EVERY ONE of them is based on vast assumptions. For example, using the reasoning of tidal stress maintaining a molten core over a long period of time is highly debatable, and easily refuted.

Just do a YouTube search and you'll find a few more modern opposing arguments.

I know the trusty onlooker will have the due diligence to do their homework.



I like you better than Linear because you make me laugh harder.

So, for you, seeing referenced pictures is just not enough evidence.

You are a tough cookie to satisfy.



No, what you actually see in the "fossil record" is sediment settling and natural layering.

The fossil record is an age-old myth.

There is no better example of picking and choosing "evidence" than the so-called "fossil record".

Here it matches. There it doesn't. Here is sorta' looks similar. There is doesn't look anything like it.

Oh well. We'll just pick the one's we like.

This is the way the world works Linda.

You have made comments in the past that scientists would promptly adjust their theories and beliefs if new evidence was found.

This is completely untrue.

We know that untrue and outdated information continues in the textbooks to this day, and I know the reason:

It is propaganda because a faith in the evolution religion facilitates a new world socialist government, among many other things that are desirable to the powers-that-be.

As said it before and I'll say it again:

Your world view is: Fantastically Naive.

At least I respect your stamina.


http://urlbam.com/ha/u

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "

—David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

This conversation is going nowhere Russ. No evidence from you again, I see. Ignoring the dates and dating methods again too. Reality doesn't work this way: you can't ignore the fact that something exists, talk as if it doesn't, and hope it conveniently vanishes.



You keep saying the geologic column doesn't exist. Right, that's all the scientists proved wrong then -- is that what you were thinking? Or are you hoping that the more times you say it, the truer it will be?



Dates and dating methods again. Not assumptions. But you're just going to keep making unsupported claims aren't you? It appears that you are unable to do otherwise.

There's no debate that the tidal stress on Jupiter's moon Io is causing it to be the most volcanically active body in the solar system. I'm amazed that all you think you have to do is say it ain't so, and thus it will be. You're trying to wind me up aren't you.



In other words, you don't want to bother backing up your statements with evidence. That's fine but since I on the other hand do, you're not making a very good case for the scientific validity of creationism.

I don't believe that you bothered to read this thread before you started talking here. You claim the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. I have given substantial evidence that rocks are routinely dated without the need for fossils yet you just ignore this. Why do you keep making the same claims over and over when they have been shown to be wrong -- you're trying to wind me up aren't you.



No, what you've just shown is that you don't understand how fossils are dated and studied. Sounds like you're regurgitating stuff Hovind told you. And it's pretty silly. You're trying to wind me up aren't you.



Who believes everything Hovind tells him despite all evidence to the contrary?

Your world view requires you to either ignore empirical evidence, or label it as evil lies, in order to protect its integrity in your head. You have demonstrated this many times here.

I don't have any desire to trade insults with anyone; I just want to have an intelligent discussion. I don't think that's going to happen here, so it looks like I'm going to have to go back to waiting for someone to present more misinformation and then let them know.

I will post an article here for you enjoyment

Please tell me what exactly is wrong with it. Tell my why your evidence (actually, you didn't post any) is superior to the evidence presented here.

You just posted unreferenced blurbs.

I suppose you think you're being funny.

Pasting stuff or posting links over and over when they've been refuted is a sign of desperation.

No. Don't think it's funny at all.

I think good information bears repeating, especially since you keep attempting to debunk the information here.

A layman's explanation of the geologic column by "Chiroptera" from EvC:

It was noticed that fossil species always occur in the same order in the geologic column. (Well, there are some exceptions, but these exceptions are very rare, and when they do occur, there are some things that are very "wrong" with the units in which they occur. I'll still use the word "always" with this caveat in mind.) Dinosaurs always occur below mammmoths. Trilobites always occur below dinosaurs. You never see trilobites above dinosaurs or mixed with dinosaurs. And for individual species, trilobite species Brachyaspidion microps is always found lower down that the species Paciphacops birdsongensis. There is a definite, consistent order to the fossils in the geologic strata, an order that cannot be explained by any flood model.

And that is how the geologic column was originally constructed. As one moves down into the geologic column, there is a definite order to when one first observes occurrences of the various fossil species and when one observes that the various fossil species no longer occur. Any given species will occur in the same rock unit with only certain other species. And so the labels for the geologic units, like "Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic" and "Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous" were defined, and are still defined, based on which species occurs in those units.

So, when a geologist in Britain observes a certain fossil species in the rock unit she is studying, she knows that that particular unit is "Devonian". What that really means is that there are only a certain numbers of particular fossil species that will appear in that unit (one of which is the particular species she is observing), and that these species, generally, don't appear in any other rock unit. So a geologist in Russia, say, reading her description already knows which known fossil species will be found in that unit, and which ones will not.

So this is the basis of the geologic column. It is noticed that rock units occur in horizontal layers, that in each layer only certain fossils species occur, and, in fact, only certain combinations of species will occur in the same rock units, and that there is a definite order in which the fossil species appear as one "reads" the column from top down.

I will repeat to make sure that this is clear: this is what the geologic column means. Rock units generally occur in horizontal layers, only certain combinations of species will occur in the same layers, and there is a certain pattern to what species occur as one reads from top to bottom.

-

What can be the interpretation of these facts? Why does this pattern exist? It is a simple observation that when sediment layers form, the layers below are older than the layers above. It also makes sense logically: how can sedimentary layers be formed beneath already existing rock? There are exceptions to this general rule, but for brevity in this initial post I'll just say that these are usually pretty easy to identify.

So this was another indication that the flood does not explain geology. When sediments settle out of water, we almost always see the courser materials settle first, then the finer materials on top. If the environment was chaotic, then maybe they won't sort very well. But one never sees finer material settle out first, then the courser materials over that. Yet this is exacly what we see in the geologic column. We often see mudstone and siltstone and sandstone alternate in various orders as one goes down the geologic column: if all these strata were formed from the same event we would either not see much differentiation, or we would always see large rocky material on the very bottom, above that sandstone which would grade into siltstone above, which, in turn, would grade into musdtone above that. Instead, we see mudstone, sandstone, and siltstone in all sorts of various orders, sometimes with quite abrubt boundaries between them. A single flood event cannot explain this; it is evident that these layers were formed at different times in different environments.

So we have these layers that were obviously formed at different times. And we can pretty much conclude that the lower layers were formed before the upper layers. And, by observing processes today, geologists were able to come up with some estimates as to how long it took each layer to form. That is how they originally came up with the estimates of the lower levels of the geologic column being tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years old. Of course, they were aware that these were very rough estimates, but what else could they do? They didn't yet know that some rocks have a date stamp included in them.

So it was proposed that each layer in the geologic column formed long ago, and the species that occurs in that layer were species that lived at the same time on the earth. So the reason that trilobites are always found below dinosaurs is because they lived earlier in the history of the earth, and then disappeared before the dinosaurs appeared. Then dinosaurs disappeared before mammoths appeared, and so dinosaurs are always found in lower strata than mammoths. And so forth.

So, if it is known that species A and species B can occur in the same rock layer, then if a geologist in Britain observes species A in the unit she is studying and a geologist in Russia observes species B in his rock unit, then, by the above hypothesis, the two rock units are roughly the same age. If a geologist in North America observes species C in the rock units she is studying, and it is known that species C always occurs in layers higher in the geologic column than either species A or B, then one draws the conclusion that her rock units are significantly younger than the other two.

So, based on the observation that the only known processes that could have formed all the sedimentary rocks would have taken a long amount of time, and based on the observation that the fossil species always occur in a definite order in the geologic column, we now have the basis for geologic dating. At this point we don't have any way of putting absolute numbers on these dates. We know that there was a period of time when the rocks labeled "Triassic" were formed, and they include the fossils of species that lived at that time. There was a period of time when the rocks labeled "Jurassic" were formed, and they include fossils of species that lived at that time.

Except for a very few that seem to have lived on the boundary, the species found in the Triassic rocks are different from the species found in the Jurassic rocks. They lived at different times. And we don't (at this point in the discussion) really know how long ago these species lived, all we know is that the Triassic species lived before the Jurassic species because the Triassic species are always found below the Jurassic species.

-

So we now have geologic dating, but we can only give relative dates, that is, we only know that some species and some events occurred before others, but we cannot pin any dates on them. It's sort of like knowing that the American Civil War occurred at roughly the same time as the Franco-Prussian War in Europe, and that both occurred before the World War I, but not knowing the exact dates at which they occurred.

Then radiometric dating was discovered. Physics, an entirely different discipline from traditional geology, potentially allows us to put actual dates on the geologic rock layers. Now this may not work: it might be possible that our interpretation of the rock layers as individual times in a long history may be wrong; it may be that in practice the radiometric dating may not work reliably. In either case, we would not expect to get consistent dates for the various rock layers.

But, as it turns out, radiometric dating does work reliably. When the rock units that contain species labeled as Jurassic are dated, the answers are always between 199 million years ago and 145 years ago. When the rock layers containing Triassic fossils, assumed under the above hypothesis to have occurred in a distinct period in time that occurred before the Jurassic, the dates are always between 251 million years ago and 199 million years ago. And similarly for other strata.

So it is important to note that radiometric dating provides additional information: we now have absolute dates when we previously had only relative dates. Also, the absolute dates observed from radiometric dating provides an independent check on the relative dating assumptions, and, in fact, is consistent with them and so provides amazing confirmation of the previous relative dating.

So, to sum up, geologic dating was already well developed long ago, long before radiometric dating, based on the simple observation that the fossil species always occur in the same order in the geologic column. This dating was only relative -- it only allowed us to tell which periods of time occurred before or after which other periods.

Radiometric dating finally allowed us to put precise ages on the rock units. But what is most important, radiometric dating gives an important confirmation that the previous geological dating system was correct. Traditional geologic dating was based simply on noting which fossil species were in the rock units, and in what order the fossil species appear. This has nothing whatsoever to do with chemistry or atomic physics. Radiometric dating is based on simply counting the amounts of radioactive isotopes and/or their daughters; it has nothing to do with geology or fossil species. Yet the two methods agree: rock units in different parts of the world that contain the same fossil species have the same radiometric dates. Rock units always date younger than the rock units that occur below them. If whenever species A and species B are found in the same locality it is observed that species A always occurs in layers below that of species B, then any rock units containing A will always have an older radiometric date than those containing species B, even when they are found in different parts of the world, even when they are collected in localities where A and B are not both found.

This is the kicker. Radiometric dating did not have to agree with the conclusions drawn from traditional geology. But they do, and consistently.

Linda, you're regurgitating the same old, outdated and mythical claims.

This is a clear sign of desperation. You are holding on tight to your religion (evolution) that you so desire to be true.

I hope one day you give into science and let these outdated claims go.



This is the crux of your claim.

Unfortunately, your information is fundamentally comprised of propaganda and it is littered with assumptions and myths.

Based on the fact that this post blatantly contradicts previous claims you have made, I'm tempted to remove it. You can't even maintain a consistent argument.

Your entire argument is based in the idea of horizontal layering. But horizontal layering occurs in a way that does not denote age by depth.

This fact is not only well-known and widely accepted, but it undermines your entire belief system.

Additionally, this fact combined with the numerous scientists who have come out and admitted that radiometric dates are "adjusted" to date fossils with THE DESIRED DATES based on the layer they appear in, rather than actual dates helps us understand how deep this deception goes.

In short, they falsify alternative dating methods to make it look as if these dating methods support their date-by-layer claims.

Just as government organizations (FDA, et al) work for corporate interests, the field of paleontology has been controlled by special interests -- namely evolution fundamentalists -- for decades.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C



Again, this is a myth based in circular reasoning and ancient depth-means-age claims.

We know more than we did 50 years ago Linda.

See this video for information about how circular reasoning is used to mis-date fossils:

http://urlbam.com/ha/K

I'm not sure why you are maintaining these ancient arguments except that you have nothing better to hold on to. But it's your faith. If you want to rely on outdated claims to support your desired religion (evolution), that's your choice.


"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

—Professor Steven J. Gould, Harvard University


"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History


"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."

—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

And yet such unsupported generalisations from you do nothing to erase the evidence that contradicts you.



Nor does denial of reality erase the evidence that contradicts you. You seem to be saying that because Russ says these are lies, then these are lies. Horizontal layering is a basic geological mechanism. What is your alternative model for how rock layers are deposited?

What's more, in the quote you cited and as I've said before, we see in the geologic column that trilobites are in lower layers, dinosaurs above those, humans above those. These are never found mixed. Do you have evidence that contradicts this?



Do you have evidence for your point above or are we again supposed to believe in a conspiracy of lies because you said so? Look in detail at radiometric data and you will see that the decay curves reflect the decay rates of daughter elements. And a hint for you: not all radiometric dating is done to confirm the age of fossils. Fossils have been found in rocks whose provenance has already been established, which would seem to contradict your conspiracy of lies idea but by all means let's see your proof. IMO your slander of scientists in order to support your personal beliefs knows no bounds.



Index fossils occur in uniquely narrow time periods in certain strata, which means that if you find a fossil such as Stringocephalus, you know you're looking at a Devonian layer because across the world that is the only place where this fossil is found. Index fossils were an aid to geologists in the past who were working out relationships between rock layers using relative means. Index fossils are today but one of many methods of establishing geochronology. You have evidence to contradict this?

Your quotes have been taken out of context and are irrelevant to the above information.

If you're going to claim it's all lies, Russ, the least you can do in order not to insult people's intelligence is provide some proof.

You continue to ignore that fact that this sedimentation devoids your entire view.

You're only comeback is to say that there is no global flood, which then become the crux of the argument.

There was a global flood, and therefore, this type of sedimentation occurred throughout the entire land mass.

Armed with this information, you can clearly explain why:

(1) Some order does appear to fossils in some location (not all as evolutionists attempt to claim, not even close), and

(2) Many locations completely disregard the sedimentation order that evolutionists prefer (so evolutionists ignore them).



You have an astounding amount of faith in people Linda.

You will one day learn that this type of faith is foolish.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

—Tolstoy 1828-1910
As quoted in "Chaos: Making A New Science", James Gleick



I'm no slandering scientists. I'm teaching you that there is an enormous amount of corruption in science today, and you are almost completely oblivious to this fact.

Being directly involved in collecting research related to herbs and vitamins, I have seen study after study that has been filled with lies, misrepresentation, false summaries, prefabricated outcomes, ghost writers, and corruption that boggles the mind.

You may ask why there is so much corruption in science today.

The reason is that science has become a business of profit. The control of knowledge is the most profitable business on Earth.

In short, science has become the new Walmart of knowledge. Sure, there's some good stuff there, but you have to look through a lot of garbage to find it.



Sometimes, yes. When they don't, well, we just ignore them. That's the way the world really works.

You just crack me up that you keep harping on this.

Linda, think Walther's Law combined with global flood. Then things begin to make sense.

Blind faith in people is a very slippery way to live Linda.

The above post is entirely comprised of unsupported assertions. They make no attempt to address the scientific evidence presented here which contradicts them. When someone decides to to do, I will respond in kind.

Here's some support for ya'

I know you want to ignore this information, but that's OK. I think most people get it.

Cheers.

I can tell you haven't even bothered to read what I have been posting here or in the flood thread Russ. You don't respond to any of it and instead either simply repeat the same things over and over, or put videos up, with no indication of whether you understand what they are talking about. I've said this before of course. Why can I respond to all this creationist stuff when you will not address any of the points I've posted that show it to be wrong? Rhetorical question. Moving on.

The layers around polystrate trees form relatively rapidly. Does that mean all rock forms rapidly? No. Instead of refuting the numerous examples I've given of rocks that form by slow processes, you simply post another video with this silly claim in it.

Your first video, with Hovind, isn't about the geologic column at all. If the examples I've given of his poor understanding of basic scientific principles isn't enough to deter you, then I refer you again to detailed refutations of more of his erroneous claims at Buddika's 300 Creationist Lies Index. Here is the sort of standard this video reaches: whales and tomatoes will never grow on corn stalks, therefore evolution is false. Do you honestly, honestly believe this stuff over science from the real world?

The second video tries slightly harder. It starts with more unsupported assertions that radiometric dating is incorrect. YECs must believe this in order for their entire belief system to work but so far no one has done anything more here than claim that radiometric dates are lies. How do you lie about radioactive decay rates? They're part of the physics of the universe.

Then we have the old claim that Russ repeats, the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils. I have already shown this to be wrong here several times over yet I would bet anything that we will see Russ making this claim again and again.

Since this creationist has set up the straw man of rocks being dated by index fossils (I don't suppose he knows what diagenetic xenotime dating is, it's all lies to him), he tries to attack the validity of index fossils. He cites three which he claims were used in the past but have been discovered to be living, such as the coelacanth. I am unable to check the validity of his claims, but there's a problem with this whole idea. None of these fossils he has mentioned are by any stretch of the imagination common or widespread. I know that the coelacanth is found in one specific part of the world, in deep waters, and the reason why it was unknown there for so long is because it is quite a rare find. As fossilisation itself is a process that rarely occurs, then the chances of a rare species being fossilised are slim. Therefore we don't find coelacanth fossils in recent strata. Millions of years ago when this was a much more commonly occurring fish, then we do. Scientists aren't lying about the fossil record because this is what we see in it: that the coelacanth disappears. But because we know that some coelacanths do exist today, it would no longer be used as an index fossil.

There are two assumptions here: a) on my part, that the person in the video has accurate information, which I feel rather skeptical of; and b) on his part, that if you rubbish an index fossil you disprove that the entire geologic column exists. That's pretty funny. Again, radiometric dating anyone? If early geologists had been so very wrong about the relationships they noticed between rock layers, then radiometric dating could have falsified their hypotheses. Instead it supported them and continues to do so. There are over 40 types of radiometric dating in use today.

He and Hovind also claim that the geologic column cannot be found anywhere in the world in the "correct order," which I have shown to be wrong in this thread. Hovind for some reason also seems to think that the complete geologic column should be "100 miles thick." (Maybe he's talking about his own head.) He is repeating Woodmorappe's paper which started this thread, and I have also shown here that this is false. Neither of them gives a single example of the column not being in the correct order, anywhere. What these videos do show me is that Russ will repeat what they claim and make no attempt to explain or elucidate, IMO because he is unable to, though he is welcome to prove me wrong at any time.

Hovind sets up Charles Lyell as a Bible-hater who made everything up in order to rubbish Christianity, which is a pretty silly strawman. What he saw was that many kinds of rocks take much longer than 6,000 years to form and he wanted scientists to be free from the constraint of believing that the earth must be this young. Good science is not based on any presuppositions; the evidence leads and you follow. Hovind's claims of Lyell "making up" the geologic column are also silly, because a lot of work was done before his time. The Surtees video gets the history more accurately and has earned a place in my record book of creationist videos because it contains genuine information with no misrepresentations of science in the first 10 minutes or so.

Hovind then claims that putting dirt in a cup, shaking it and watching it settle is akin to studying all the sedimentary rocks in the world. If you believe this utter nonsense then I honestly pity you because you will never be able to see past the most basic misrepresentations of science dished up by these people.

Again, overall, lots of unsupported assertions, straw men, and inaccuracies. No real evidence. You've obviously been taking lessons from them Russ. How about learning some real science at some point.

The polystrate trees permeate several layers. These same layers extend and include a number of different fossils that evolutionists like to call "index" fossils.

It is completely illogical and unscientific to just discard this evidence and say, "Well this PART of the layer where this tree is happened to form fast, but this part over here formed slowly".

This is a blatant disregard for the evidence we have right before us.

Over and over I have seen evolutionists attempt to explain away these "problems" in an attempt to support their religion.

This is not science. This is twisting evidence to fit a preexisting belief and is an example of a man-made religion desperately trying to justify itself.

Ironically, this is exactly what evolutionists continually accuse creationists of doing.

Here is another example of evidence-twisting at work:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."

—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

OK, we've got two videos here from Hovind and now one from Carl Baugh, he of the "Paluxy Man-Tracks." Even AiG reject that claim. If you read in more detail about it, you will find that he and/or his pals are hoaxers.

What he says in your video above presents no problem for geologists. As I have stated before, we know that some strata form relatively quickly. The problem for you is that if even one kind of rock forms slowly, the earth cannot be a mere thousands of years old. Please explain how blueschist, limestone or evaporites can form quickly.



Several problems here:
a) Your video makes no such claim;
b) You have not given any evidence that this is true;
c) You still seem to be convinced that the only way geologists date rocks is by index fossils. Russ, this is OBVIOUSLY WRONG and you're making yourself look silly by continuing to believe it.

Find an example of a succession of index fossils that existed significant periods in time apart from each other, all found in the layers of one polystrate tree, and you can go some way to trying to back up your claim. Until you do, this will be filed under the heading, "stuff creationists make up."

I also notice that you are again not reading/ignoring everything I have previously posted here. It all disproves what you/your videos (same thing) are saying. Are you not going to try to make a case for yourself at all? What do you think that is showing people here about your position?

Inaccurate as usual, and can't be troubled to read your own links. AiG does not reject the Paluxy River tracks, and those who trace objections regarding them will find Glen Kuban to be the source of every single one since about 1980. We know you put a lot of faith in this individual, but he doesn't dictate reality.

That would not be a problem for Russ.

And when he does, we'll file it under "stuff LindaLou can't see". It's a big file.

This is off topic here, but a link for you to look at CTD:
What About Carl Baugh? A Commentary by Answers in Genesis

I made this point to show that like Hovind, Baugh's credentials are questionable; but regardless of that, polystrate trees are not a problem for geologists, evolution, etc. You've made claims that Russ ought to be able to disprove what I said in my last post. Let's see if he does. In the meantime I'm wondering what your own post above is contributing to the discussion. (?)

Comic relief?

It's a matter of perspective. I view accuracy as a positive thing, you and Linear view it as something to avoid.

As for your complaint about it being off-topic; don't bring up off-topic inaccuracies, and you won't see them corrected. But I might as well tell you not to post at all, I suppose. And since when do you care if a thread gets derailed, anyhow?

CTD has dealt with this false claim.



This is another hypothesis based on vast assumption.

If you present some evidence supporting it, I'll be happy to debunk it, unless it's credible.



Strawman.

I have mentioned continually that several credible men in the field have admitted that the "other" dating methods are invented. They use indexing as a target and then calibrate the other method to match the desired index.

Again, this is not science. And you can't just come out and say that all these men are forming a conspiracy because that would make you a conspiratorialist, and you can't stand conspiratorialists.



No it doesn't.

If you wish to prove yourself right, pick a point and let's talk about it.

Once again, no evidence here. Quick summary: "I'm right and you're wrong." The problem is Russ, I've been giving evidence for several pages now and you don't seem to think that's required to support your position. You have so far avoided just about every question I've asked you here.



By saying is essence, "I don't believe it"? In your book that seems to be all the definitive evidence that's required by your side.



I have asked you at least 3 different times in different threads to refute the evidence I've given that certain rocks form slowly and you've ignored me every time. Now you're simply telling me that I'm making assumptions. The processes that form blueschist, evaporites and limestone are not assumptions. You need to show that these can form rapidly in order to support the YEC position -- though since you now seem to be saying that the earth is old, I don't understand why you are posting and supporting videos that claim it formed 6,000 years ago.



Yet for all anyone knows who is reading, you are making this up because you have never once provided evidence that it's actually true. Fact: index fossils can help to date rock layers, and this was more the case a hundred years ago before radiometric dating methods were used. Fact: The relationships between rock layers were noted using relative means such as Steno's Laws, and early geologists also noticed that certain fossils regularly appear only in certain layers. Fact: when radiometric dating methods began to be used, they could have falsified the geologic column as it was understood but instead they verified it. You have consistently refused to deal with this point even though I've repeated it over and over. It refutes your insistence that fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils.

I think that if this discussion is going to continue, you should explain why one of the absolute dating methods that scientists use is wrong. Hard evidence please, not conspiracy theories or "I read somewhere that someone said it was wrong." Or maybe you do accept them, if you believe the earth is old, in which case I don't think there's much for us to actually debate here.

It is well-known that many dating methods are unreliable. Additionally, it is becoming well-known that massive corruption exists -- and has existed -- in scientific circles for some time.

I know that you fear the idea of conspiracies (are you a conspiraphobic?) yet, they are all around us and have been throughout history.

You even mentioned previously that you believe that science would make mid-course corrections if it were found to be wrong.

My response to your false belief was this:

"How fantastically naive."

Do you remember that?

The way the world really works is that these deep claims can never be formally rescinded because too much FAITH would be lost in this methodology of control.

I love science, but evolution is not science.

The video that I provided shows the inconsistencies with convention sedimentation claims. Furthermore, you have not supported the ridiculous claim that sediments forms faster away from trees.

You may want to support your claim, because it really appears that "evolution" is again "reaching" to attempt to save its face on this one.



This has been your position all along.

Flood evidence and information on sedimentation.

Keep in mind that these experiments show VERY RAPID formation for sedimentation. These videos also present other evidence that makes evolution-claims "nonsensical", for example, the footprint-claims.

We have to consider the mix of animal tracks that co-exist with land plants as well. We have to look at the evidence that natural presents to us, not attempt to explain in according to a preexisting bias.

It is par for the course for evolution to make desperate claims to support impossible evidence.










"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."

—R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].

This thread is about the geologic column so that is what I will focus on here.



I've lost count of how many times you've said this, without ever having provided any evidence whatsoever. Does repeating it twenty times make it true? It is actually well known that radiometric dating is a tested and reliable method of geochronology, and I have given numerous examples in this thread of how areas have been dated several times with different methods that correlate. All you have done is ignore this and repeat your mantra over and over. Readers here take note: creationists cannot show with any evidence that radiometric dating doesn't work. While it is easy to provide evidence that it does work.



I have no idea which video you are talking about, or what this comment is about sediments forming faster away from trees. (huh?) Please clarify.



Instead of obligingly watching endless creationist videos which sadly take advantage of their audience's lack of basic scientific knowledge, I am going to cut to the quick here. I'm going to hazard a guess that none of your videos deal with types of rock and sediment that form slowly. They simply expect you to assume that if they show you some types of sediment that form quickly, you will happily think that this proves that all sediment forms quickly, which is just silly.

If you believe you have information that refutes what I have posted about the flood, then please post it in the flood thread, thanks.

I also think that if we are going to carry on discussing the geologic column, you need to show that one of the absolute dating methods for rocks does not work. If you cannot, then you need to stop making false claims about things you do not understand.

So, you believe that alternative dating methods are reliable.

Please, tell me which ones you have faith in.

Also, tell me if St. John's Wort really works, according to "science".

This will be fun.

You have not said anything except making a list of claims. Your links to evidence are not evidence at all, but the websites that make the same claims you parrot from.

I have shown videos explaining the models in detail, which would take pages to replicate in print here, but they don't do it for you.

Nothing is good enough, unless it agrees with your bias.

I think you meant "absolute" dating methods.

Scientific journals have been full for decades of data that correlates from different dating methods. The link I gave you in my previous post shows a list of dozens of correlative dates for the same broad area, and each individual study is cited. So now the tack you've taken is that data published in scientific journals is nothing but "claims" that people "parrot." I could very easily link you to sites that explain how different dating methods are used. I've got a good video that shows how the K-Ar and Ar-Ar method works in a way that the layperson can understand. But if you refuse to accept data from scientific journals as reality, I don't suppose you will accept any of these explanations as reality either. Anyone can sweep an uncomfortable truth under the rug and pretend it isn't there. Apparently the way you are doing that now is by claiming that scientists are liars; you, the greater expert in geology, have dismissed their research and the tools that they use.

You still need to tell me this, looking at it from the most basic perspective: How does measuring the radioactive decay that has taken place in a rock result in an erroneous age for the rock? We know how long it takes for uranium to decay to lead. We measure the amount of both in the rock. This is of course very simplistic, but where exactly do you think there is a flaw in this?



Can you not post any writing about it? Surely the claim can be boiled down to a short statement. And I don't recall seeing any videos from you that discredit radiometric dating.

For those who would like to watch, here is the video (6 minutes) I mentioned that explains it using K-Ar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ii-dpRrXM&NR=1

When I provide videos, you want writing. When I provide writing, you call is babble.

You want it short. You want it detailed. You want what you want.

The truth is that each person will have to make their own decision based on the evidence they see.

This video is a revealing video that you refuse to address.

If you're feeling brave, tell me what you don't like about this video. Be specific.

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002D

ROFL, LMAO, etc etc

These have been thoroughly discussed in the Flood thread. They've got nothing to do with dating methods.

Funny. In post 52493 above, you said...



Oh well.

In my previous post, I'm referring to polystrate fossils in relation to dating. You still refuse to accept the models that where built and demonstrated in the video, but you make no explanation why you reject this science.

Perhaps you've changed the subject (as evidenced above) so you don't have to reply to the science I've presented, but that is up to you. I don't know your motivations.

The piece you linked to about PS fossils is what we call a fluff-piece. This is what you write when you have no real evidence. You fill in the piece with all kinds of related well-known facts and try to make it seem like ("feel" like) you really said something scientific.

The lazy onlooker reads the boring, unrelated facts in the beginning, then they get tired of looking for an answer, skip to the end, and then the summary makes it sound like they explained the problem.

Again, this is not science. It is propaganda. It's disheartening to see young people today so easily deceived, but generations of dumbing-down are clearly having an effect on our world.

Well, it you care to tell me what you don't like about the science video explaining sedimentation, feel free.

I linked you to a compilation of dozens of separate radiometric studies done in the same broad area. These studies are from peer-reviewed scientific journals. You have a glance at it and call it "fluff." You are hilarious. The fact is that you simply will not allow yourself to accept anything other than what creationists tell you, regardless of its basis in reality. Go ahead and keep demonstrating this if you want, you're doing a marvellous job.

In the Flood thread I posted a Wikipedia article about how polystrate trees form. You should be happy; it tells you that the strata form relatively quickly.

Polystrate trees do not prove that all sedimentary layers form quickly. You have ignored this fact.

You claimed that a wide variety of index fossils has been found in layers around a polystrate tree but you cannot substantiate this with any evidence.

Your continual insistence that polystrate trees disprove the geologic column or the fossil record in any way is looking increasingly symptomatic of a refusal to believe that anyone feeding you these claims could possibly be wrong. This is called cognitive dissonance.

In order to put some weight behind your claims, you need to show that an absolute dating method is wrong. This is my third invitation, which will no doubt continue to be ignored.

You're obviously mixed up and referring to something else.

I'm talking about the talk origins article specifically. I thought I mentioned that.

Very good.

Now, let me first establish your position, then I will establish mine.

You said...



So, is it fair to say that you believe that a variety of fossils have not been found around polystrate trees?

Is this your position?

In post 52493, I linked to the radiometric studies. I linked to a Wikipedia article about polystrate trees in the Flood thread. I truly don't understand what you think they prove. Your short video only claims that they are a "problem," as creationists love to do, but only because they have mistaken beliefs about scientists being "uniformitarians" in the sense that they don't think anything, ever, can form rapidly (which is nonsense).



No, I said index fossils, because you made an earlier claim that a variety of index fossils from different places in the fossil record had been found in the strata of a polystrate tree. You'd need to discount the possibility that they had been washed there from other strata that had eroded and this would depend on an examination of the strata and the surrounding area, which is what a geologist would do. If you can substantiate your claim then please do so.

OK, so you believe index fossils (or fossils indicating a date) have NOT be found around polystrate trees.

I read the piece that you linked to on talk origins that attempts to explain polystrate trees, but it wasn't clear.

Could you tell me in plain language how these polystrate trees form -- passing vertically through multiple layers of sediment?

Thanks.

Of course it's possible, even probable, that index fossils have been found near polystrate trees. Now different index fossils from vastly different parts of the geologic column, in situ, in polystrate tree layers -- that would be a major find. That's what you seemed to be implying you'd heard about but could not give evidence for.



The sediment layers form relatively rapidly. And wood does not necessarily decay instantly:

Polystrate Fossil