Re: Re: Ken Ham progress report

On 26 Aug 2006 14:56:01 -0700, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:


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

Skipping the regurgitated stuff to the new arguments....
[cut lots of stuff that the moron, known to us all as McClueless,
should have removed himself]

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.

No, he tells YOU the truth, but you then misread it.

Index fossils provide the basis for
date determination.

No. They can be used in the field to help identify layers, but the
only valid dates will be obtained in the lab.

And of course said bodies of modern life, if
buried would tell nothing about the age because they can't be carbon
dated.

The will be fossiles. They will tell scientist of the future a lot
about life today. They will be dated from the rocks that contain them.




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?

Yes. Maybe you should learn something about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Cite please.




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?

If a rock is of a different matterial to the matrix it is in then it
is an inclusion or intrusion.



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.

Yes it is, though it is helped by over 3 billion years of evolution.

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

Watch the sig length MORON!

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... 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 ... to prove that evolution ideas hold no sway over geologists and that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... Excuse me, moron, but are you now claming to know what I think? ... because they are only found in particular rocks of a particular strata. ... if you happen to be interested in geology. ... Darwin said his faith in evolution was strengthened after ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... rocks that were millions of years older than they were. ... about how geology and dating rocks works. ... Darwin said his faith in evolution was strengthened after ... and pebbles that make up such rocks are older than the conglomerate layer. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... When can we expect a reply from you on this subject McClueless? ... "Rocks of today" are rocks that were solidified ... about how geology and dating rocks works. ... Darwin said his faith in evolution was strengthened after ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ken Ham progress report
    ... rocks that were millions of years older than they were. ... Not only are you using the word "canard" improperly, ... about how geology and dating rocks works. ... Darwin said his faith in evolution was strengthened after ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading