Re: Ken Ham progress report


DJT wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snipping

So here Tweedy admits the truth.

I always speak the truth.

No you don't

Actually, you will find that I do speak the truth, and always have.

So far this debate proves your assertion questionable.

and neither do you think that you do

Excuse me, moron, but are you now claming to know what I think? Are
you claiming psychic powers now?

I am claiming that I can repeat your own words.




and neither do you
think scientists do.

I think that scientists do by and large speak truthfully. Any
scientist who does not would lose any credibility in his carreer.

Actually this is not so. Evolutionists, despite repeatedly having
been rebuked and refuted continued to be employed. So this idea about
"carreer (sic)" is false. Additionally there are plenty of
scientists who have managed to get their material into peer-reviewed
journals and later, much later, having been found to had fabricated the
information in their work. In the last 10 years or so this has been a
big issue in acadamia.




That's why creationists don't have any credibilty.

Creationists have a lot of credibility which is why they have been
winning overwhelmingly in debates against the entrenched evolutionary
establishment across the world. And many have been quick to point out
that well credentialed creationists have been treated unfairly and due
recognition for their achievements have been denied, including the
rewarding of Nobel Peace prize not to their inventor - the creationist,
but to others. This is a well-established fact. Evolutionists have
firmly entrenched themselves in the establishment and you know this,
and do not play fair.





You said science doesn't prove anything and
therefore you believe that it's established on uncertainty.

Moron, it's difficult to see how you could possibly be more confused
about what I said. I never claimed that scince is "established on
uncertainty". Science never proves anything, because there is always
new information coming in.

There are many things that have been proved in science. Your claim
that science doesn't prove things proves that you are uncertain about
things that science has proven.


Science always leaves open the possibility
that new information may change the status quo. Therefore scientific
theories are never proven.

There has been no new information that has changed the status quo on
proved scientific laws.





I believe
a lot of science is absolutely certain.

What you believe is of no consequence, as you are a moron. The fact
remains that science is never "absolutely certian" about anything. But
that doesn't mean that scientists are always in doubt either.

Actually the truth be told is that a scientific law is a law because it
makes predictions that can be tested. And this is absolutely certain.
With the information obtained from science we can send a rocket ship to
any planet in the solar system and know how long it will take, how much
fuel to use and how to use the other planets to guide it to it's final
destination. This is absolutely certain information. What is certain,
however, is that you are uncertain.




You don't believe that.

You have no idea what I believe, or don't believe. The only thing you
have is your own ignorance and projection.

Actually I've projected nothing. I've merely told you that you can make
predictions with scientific laws and that is where the certainty is
implied. Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse.










Index fossils provide the basis for
date determination.

Moron, as it's been explained to you before, index fossils are markers, not
the "basis for date determination".

Markers for what, Dana Tweedy?

The markers are not "for" anything, moron. They are simply unique
characteristics of the particular rock layers.

False. Any individual who wants to prove you false can pick up
numerous books written on geology and arrive at the conclusion that an
index fossil is called an index fossil because it's an index to time
periods developed by early geologists, otherwise they would be called
"index" fossils.




What do they mark out?

They are unique features of the particlar layers. It just so happens
those features are the remains of once living things. It wouldn't
matter to the geologists, however if they were inorganic items such as
crystals, or bands of iron ore. Index fossils are used as markers
because they are only found in particular rocks of a particular strata.

The term index was used to designate time periods, such as Cambrian,
Devonian, etc. You're false understanding of geology is becoming quite
apparent.






Please
explain. This should be good.

It is good, if you happen to be interested in geology. Pick up any
basic level text on geology and it will explain how index fossil are
used. That is if you can read.

I did and it proved you wrong.









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

Moron, I didn't say that. Bodies of modern life could be carbon dated, if
they were uncovered within 50,000 years of being buried.

They can't be carbon dated if they lose their soft parts and are
completely replaced with minerals.

Fossils that can't be carbon dated, of course can be dated by
association with the layers they are found it. The layers can be dated
by radiometric means.


How can that be since the layers are composed of rocks and sediments of
different time periods. This is circular reasoning. You've mentioned
this before and haven't specified a solution to this problem except for
igneous rocks. And as told to you before this, too, is unfeasible. You
have added nothing new to this equation but to quote your own self
(which was refuted awhile ago).







snip


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?

Again, you don't seem to understand what the word "canard" means.

Then why do you speak it?

Moron, if you haven't noticed, YOU were the one who was using the term
incorrectly. Lean what the word "canard" means before you attempt to
use it in your rambling.

It really doesn't matter what it means as you misappropriate the word
moron all the time when you don't seem to know what it means.










Ever
heard of historical geology?

Yes, I've heard of historical geology. How does that support your
assertion?

No answer?

There is an answer. You claim that geology is geology, in your attempt
to prove that evolution ideas hold no sway over geologists and that
geology is a separate science that is objective according to the facts
and arrive at their conclusions separately. However, that is not true.
Historical geology covers evolutionary thoughts in transposing into the
rock formations.







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.

Darwin never claimed "faith in" evolution. Lyell's geololgy (which was
very good for it's time) did support Darwin's ideas on evolution. There
still is no such thing as "evolutionary geology". Geology is geology.

Lyell was a lawyer who was working not in his field.

Lyell studied geology. It was his field.

He was an amateur who made it up as he went along. He helped influence
early geologists into thinking that they can measure deposition rates
and form estimates of the stratas to which they have forced dated. And
of course this methods has been falsified.



He taught the
idea of uniformitarianism, and idea that is flawed.

What, exactly do you think is "flawed" about uniformitanarianism?
Please note that uniform processes does not mean that occasional
catastrophies do not ever occur. "Catastrophism" of Lyell's time was
found to be completely false.

Catastrophism is proven by the nature of the fossils themselves. If
they are buried enmass that signifies the extent of the catastrophy.




Geologists used
to try to calculate deposition rates to figure out the age of the
sediments.

Actually, without radiometric means, such calculation of deposition
rates can give a pretty good estimate of how long features take to
form.

Actually you can tell nothing about calcualtion deposition rates.
Especially when you frequently find huge fossil deposits. This means
that such creatures were evidently buried rapidly, in particular if
they were fish, and other creatures of same sort.



This idea is useless and has mislead many.

No, moron, the idea of "Goddidit" is useless, and has misled may for
much longer than science has been around.

Not so. Evolutionists frequently lose in debates.


snipping

One doesn't have to "determine every inclusion". Inclusions large enough
to make a difference are well recognized by geologists.

What you aren't saying is that inclusions are parts in rock that give
the dates that evolutionary geologists do not like.

No, moron, inclusions are recognized as coming from older strata. They
don't give "ages that evolutionary geologists do not like". As I've
pointed out before there is no such thing as "evolutionary geologists".
Evolution is a theory of biology, not geology.

Actually this is a falsehood. Early evolutionists have noted that
they need time inorder for evolution to occur because the transitions
take a long time. Therefore geology, under the filter of evolutionary
theory, is used by evolutionary geologists to find ways to make geology
pontificate for long earth age and rid any vestige of catastophism. But
as many geologists have noted you can't find a fossil that wasn't
involved in some sort of rapid burial due to sediments, otherwise their
soft parts would have long vanished before the rock could even leave an
imprint. Additionally, the larger the fossil deposit the greater the
burial, and hence, catastrophism.






Evolutionary
geologists are those geologists, if we should call them that, who see
long age and evolution as something everyone should believe.

In other words, every working geologist. So there is no reason to make
such a distinction. Evolution is a biological theory, so geologists
have no reason to support it, if there wasn't the evidence to do so.
Long ages is clearly shown by basic geology. To deny such evidence
would require a geologist to ignore most of his training. That's why
Glen Morton, who started out as a YEC ultimately rejected creationism.

Glen Morton is a man who's claims are ill-founded. I have correponded
with him for a brief time and challenged on some issues. Morton
assumed that the current world is like the pre-flood world. He
contended that the amount of fossil remains indicated vast periods of
time because the amount of petroleum and coal is copious. But the
pre-flood world, all creation scientists agree, except for Morton, a
rare exception, was rich. God evidently created the world rich with
fertile ground. There was the exact chemistry needed to produce
superior plants. Lately I have been experimenting with fertilizer on
lawns. You can take fertilizer and draw on the ground and watch the
grass turn green where you draw. The difference is crystal clear. The
scientists who have formulated the fertilizer have studied plants and
soil and ingredients. But the creator understood plants perfectly so
the formula wouldn't be imprecise as from men of science, but perfect.
In this understanding plants that normally wouldn't grow in the absense
of light could grow in this perfect chemistry, and that plants that
wouldn't grow in excessive exposure to light could grow. With perfect
knowledge the desired results are endless. Trees in the pre-flood
world grew taller. That is the solution to Morton's ridiculous and
ill-founded problem.










When rocks run down
stream there is complete mixture. How does one determine inclusion in
this case?

Such gravels are called "conglomerates". Geologists know that the gravel
and pebbles that make up such rocks are older than the conglomerate layer.
Again, your ignorance of geology is showing.

Actually you are bringing forth your ignorance.

No, moron, it's only your ignorance on display.

I can produce an old
article where I used the word conglomerate.

Even if you could, so what? Undoubtedly it would be out of context.



But using such terms here
so that the masses can understand would be somewhat out-of-place unless
you define it.

Again, a basic level geology text explains what a conglomerate is.
Anyone even mildly interested in geology should know what is meant by
the term.

You've stated that rocks that compose the conglomerate
are older than the conglomerate.

That's obviously and trivially true. The pebbles and gravel that make
up a conglomerate would have to be older than the time they solidified
into a rock.

But my point, and I've guess you've
forgotten, is that you can't take a rock from a conglomerate to
determine date. You can't date it.

So what? No one is claiming you can.
You can, if you know the date of the strata on either side of the
conglomerate. You can tell, with admirable precision, when the
pebbles and gravel solidified into a rock strata.

First you claim that no one is claiming that you can date a rock then
you make the claim that you can if you "know the date of the strata on
either side of the conglomerate. And of course this is circular
reasoning because you have to establish the date of the strata on
either side of the formation - an idea which you haven't established
nor proven.


Earlier you've put emphasis on
dating rocks and I told you that standard methodology is used to
determine dates,

No, moron, you did not. You claimed that dates were determined "by
stratography", ignoring the fact that stragography is used only as part
of the dating process. Stratographic analysis is used to determine
the relationship of the unknown strata to strata that the age is
already known. Thereby giving the strata a date.

I did mention standard methodology and I've done so on several threads
in which dinosaur soft parts were mentioned. Additionally you fail to
notice that everything you've said above is circular.



and now you are alluding to that.

No, moron, I'm not "alluding" to your fantasies at all.

It's all based on
circles, its all circular reasoning.

Dating rocks is not based on circular reasoning. That's what I've been
trying to get through your thick, granite like skull. Dates are
determined by objective testing of the igneous rocks above and below
the sedimentary stratas. These dates are checked, and re-checked, and
different methods are used to cross reference, so that no one process
can be giving false readings.

Actually you can find many geology textbooks that speak of index
fossils toward finding the period of geologic time. Here you mention
igneous rock, and as I've said before igneous rocks do not give any
clue of age just as volcanic rocks do not give any age.



The standard creationist claim of "circular reasoning" in regards to
dates, is the false claim that index fossils are used to date the
rocks, and the fossils are dated by the rocks they are found it. If
this were the case, then the reasoning would be circular. What is
actually done is that index fossils are used as markers to determine
the relative date of rock layers as was done long before evolution was
proposed as theory. Absolute dates are determined by radiometric
dating of the igneous rocks on either side of the sedimentary rock that
contains the fossils.

Rock dating is always used in conjunction with index fossils and
stratigraphy. It's all based on finding the rocks we want to confirm
that dates that we already agree upon.

JM



If you can't date a rock using
dating methods such as radiometric dating,

Geologists can date rocks using radiometric dating, moron.

then you have to find other
means. And you can't do it.

There are other means of dating, that don't use radiometric means.
Electron spin resonanance, fission track, paleomagenetism, etc...

Your ignorance again shows you to be a fool.


Snip unanswered questions. Looks like McMoron lost again.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages