Re: Ken Ham progress report


Dana Tweedy wrote:
<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156452183.699884.128480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

Skipping the regurgitated stuff to the new arguments....


I never
said that discordant dates aren't reported, which is why I put the word
"discordant" in quotation marks.

You said,( and your words just above attest to this) that discordant
dates
are 'tossed out'. If by that you mean they are reported, then you should
not have used the words "tossed out".

We wouldn't have known that they tossed them out as "discordant" if
they didn't write it in their reports.

Moron, discordant dates are those which are in error, due to some kind of
problem with the dating. They are not a systemetic disposal of dates that
don't agree with the normal dating concepts. Your assertions are just
plain false.







When I wrote that the discordant dates
are tossed out I meant they aren't considered valid.

They aren't considered valid because they aren't valid. They are due to
errors in either the sampling, or in the dating process. Invalid dates
are
due to known classes of errors, and are not consistent with any other
tests.
That's why they are discordant.


Actually the truth be told is that your assertion of "known classes of
errors" are merely possible reasons to which errors may result.

Moron, since you know little to nothing about how geologic dating is
conducted, how are we supposed to accept your "truth be told"? You are
just plain wrong, and your assertions are due to your own ignorance.

The
truth be told is that the geologist picks out the best rocks and does
so with a high degree of caution.

The geologist does perform dating techniques carefully,. but they do not
merely throw out discordant dates. They must be accounted for, and the
tests are always open to checking and cross checking.

These are sent to the lab. When the
rocks do not give the right ages per already agreed upon date for the
said strata, then they are tossed out.

No, moron, they are not "tossed out". If a reading gives a date that's
obviously out of sequence, the sample is re-checked, and most likely the
result is due to contamination of the sample by older material. Any
discordant dates are accounted for, and reported in the literature. There
is no systemic rejection of out of sequence dates.

An excuse is given and this is
what you call "due to known classes of errors." And this might consist
of the reason, "leaching" or some other reason. But these arguments
are assertions and not fact. It is circular.


Again, you demonstrate that you neither understand how rocks are dated, and
you don't understand what "circular" arguments are.






All rocks give
off readings of some sort,

That is where you are wrong (among other areas you are wrong about).
Rocks
do not "give off" any kind of readings. Various techniques are used to
find
the date the rock solidified, but the rock itself does not "give off"
anything related to dates.

Your cloaking the circularity in the words "various techniques"
provides no answer.

There is no "circularity" to "cloak" moron. Dates are obtained by cross
checking the material by different methods. Scientists don't depend on
simply one dating technique. That way we can tell when the rocks
solidified.






but the truth be told they contradict each
other and do not amount to time measurements.

Your ignorance of geoloigc dating leads you into error. Geologists
rarely
get contradictory dates when performing dating techniques. The few that
do
come out in variance with the other dates invaribly turn out to be the
result of known classes of errors.

Actually contradictory dates have been obtained in plenty.

No, moron they have not. Try reading something other than creationist
lies.

Many
extensive lists of such dates have been provided.

"provided" by whom? You have not produce such an "extensive list". Give
citation to the relevant scientific literature.

If the dates were
all uniform that would render a clue as to the fact that someone is
lying.

Or it would indicate that the dating techniques are correct. The latter is
more reasonable.

When you walk down the road or visit a stream bed you step on
rocks that are supposedly millions of years old.

Because they are millions of years old.

But the fact be told
that shouldn't be possible because it is 2006!

That doesn't make sense. Why should that not be possible?

When the triceratops
roamed the earth he should be standing on rocks that were millions of
years older than him,

Yes, and those triceratops (which were not Jackson's Chameleons) did walk on
rocks that were millions of years older than they were.

just as the rocks of today aren't from the year
2006.

In 2006, sediment layers are being laid down that will be rocks 65 million
years from now. "Rocks of today" are rocks that were solidified millions
of years in the past. Bodies of modern life are presently being embedded
into soft sediment layers that will be the fossils of 20,000,000,006 AD.

So here Tweedy admits the truth. Index fossils provide the basis for
date determination. And of course said bodies of modern life, if
buried would tell nothing about the age because they can't be carbon
dated.




So according to evolutionary geologist standards the whole
dating system is a canard.

Not only are you using the word "canard" improperly, you aren't making any
sense. There is no such thing as a "evolutionary geologist". Evolution
is a theory of biology, not geology. You seem to be horribly confused
about how geology and dating rocks works.

How can you claim more canard when you're words are canard? Ever
heard of historical geology? Ignorance is bliss in your case, but not
for long. Darwin said his faith in evolution was strengthened after
reading the error filled work of the late Lyell who wrote a piece on
geology.




If a grave yard was covered over in a flood
that dislodged millions of rocks and sediment those rocks would be from
every age conceivable.

Moron, normally floods don't disturb the rock layers beneath the topsoil.
Even in the very rare cases where entire rock units are washed away,
geologists recognize such as "inclusions' and they are aware that inclusions
are older than the matrix they are trapped in.

There is no way you can determine every inclusion. When rocks run down
stream there is complete mixture. How does one determine inclusion in
this case?



Thne deposited upon the grave. And would that
make that cemetary millions of years old?

Geologists don't make such assumptions. This demonstrates you don't
understand how geology is studied.

And should a volcano erupt
it would spew out lava that would have the label of 2006 upon it.

Geologists would be able to tell what date a lava flow solidified.
Therefore anything buried by that flow would have to be older than the lava.

That
lava sat underground for "millions" of years according to evolutionary
standards.

First of all, there are no "evolutionary standards" in regards to dating.
Geolology is independent of evolutionary theory. Second, that "lava" was
molten rock, and the melting resets the geologic "clock" of the lava. The
date of a lava flow is from the time it solidified, not how long is was
under the ground.

Geology is not independent of evolutionary theory.

JM




It's all out of kilter.

The only thing 'out of kilter' is your ignorance of geology. You know
nothing about how dating is done, yet you insist it can't be done.

The whole dating system is hogwash.

Wrong again, moron. The dating system produces accurate results, and is
used profitably by oil companies throughout the world. If it didn't work
they wouldn't be using it.

The lead swashed around in the lava only to be spewed out atop of the
cemetary.

What "lead" and what "swashed around"? Your stupidity about this matter is
truly breathtaking.

snipping many other examples of McMoron losing arguments.


DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... "discordant" in quotation marks. ... don't agree with the normal dating concepts. ... truth be told is that the geologist picks out the best rocks and does ... geologists recognize such as "inclusions' and they are aware that inclusions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Rocks that are to be dated are selected carefully. ... they are considered discordant are explained. ... or in the dating process. ... geologists even reject readings of a number that agree with each other, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Rocks that are to be dated are selected carefully. ... they are considered discordant are explained. ... or in the dating process. ... geologists even reject readings of a number that agree with each other, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Rocks that are to be dated are selected carefully. ... they are considered discordant are explained. ... or in the dating process. ... geologists even reject readings of a number that agree with each other, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Welcome back McClueless, you seem to be hiding a lot recently, I guess ... Moron, as it's been explained to you before, index fossils are markers, not ... because they are only found in particular rocks of a particular strata. ... etc. You're false understanding of geology is becoming quite ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading