Re: Re: Ken Ham progress report

On 28 Aug 2006 11:45:25 -0700, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:


DJT wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
snipping

So here Tweedy admits the truth.

Welcome back McClueless, you seem to be hiding a lot recently, I guess
the constant thrashing you get on this group must be a bit of a strain
for you.

But remember McClueless, there are still quite a number of cites you
should be spending your time looking up. Most importantly of course is
the name of that textbook that promoted Piltdown Man as a key example
of evolution. You know, the one with the fantastic sales.

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.

So far, in this debate and all others, it is you that is 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.

Go ahead - but do make sure you correctly cite the post and, most
importantly, quote in context.

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.

Unless yo have some very good proof for that claim I think you should
retract without delay.

Evolutionists, despite repeatedly having
been rebuked and refuted

Rebuked and refuted by who McClueless?

continued to be employed. So this idea about
"carreer (sic)" is false.

When Gish couldn't make the grade as a scientist he quit - there is a
good example for you.

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.

Duh! That is the whole point moron.

In the last 10 years or so this has been a
big issue in acadamia.

Hardly, though there have been a few well published cases.




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

Creationists have a lot of credibility

Only in the minds of other cretinists like you.

which is why they have been
winning overwhelmingly in debates

Care to name one single debate they have won?

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,

That is because they don't do science. They are frauds like Gish or
con artists like Hovind and Wyatt.

including the
rewarding of Nobel Peace prize not to their inventor - the creationist,
but to others.

Care to find one creationist that would ever come close to earning a
Nobel prize?

This is a well-established fact.

Only to cretinists like you McClueless.

Evolutionists have
firmly entrenched themselves in the establishment and you know this,
and do not play fair.

Oh dear McClueless, I now have this pitiful picture of you crying over
this unfair game called science. A game where those that do science
get the accolades, while those that turn their backs on science, and
take the cretinist path, end up getting the brickbats. Just how unfair
can life be?

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.

You use "prove" in the general sense. Prove in science is not quite
the same thing.

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.

Oh McClueless, that is happening all the time.


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

But never by you.

is that a scientific law is a law because it
makes predictions that can be tested.

No, that is a theory.

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.

One thing that is always certain when McClueless talks about science
is that he will get it wrong. Nice to see you keeping to form.

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.

You did! See above moron.

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.

We do tent to make allowances for your ignorance McClueless, but
sometimes you do go a bit too far.

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.

You are.

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.

Oh McClueless, I've explained it to you before so I'm not going to do
it again and waste more space. You are wrong. Get that? WRONG.

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.

Why are you so incredibly thick McClueless? Why do you get absolutlely
everything wrong? Is it genetic? Are your parent imbeciles as well? Or
did they just repeatedly drop you on your head as a child?

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.

Cite?

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).

McClueless. I, and others, have tried to educate you. We have
explained how dates are worked out, how more than one method is
usually used to date a sample in order to remove errors. Why have you
not learnt from these lessons? Why do you persist in spouting the same
errors over and over and over again?


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.

Moron, it is you that misuses words. We call you a moron because you
act like one.

moron
n noun informal a stupid person.

DERIVATIVES
moronic adjective
moronically adverb

ORIGIN
early 20th cent.: from Greek moron, neuter of moros 'foolish'.

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.

But it is true McClueless, and you cannot change that fact.

Historical geology covers evolutionary thoughts in transposing into the
rock formations.

Learn something about 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.

Liar!

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.

McClueless says it, so it must be......WRONG.

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.

You clearly do not understand sedimentation or fossils.

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.

NO THEY DON'T.

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.

The only falsehoods in this thread come from you.

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.

Wrong again McClueless - so very wrong again.

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

The is not such thing as a creation scientist.

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.

Oh dear! McClueless calling someone "ridiculous". He must be looking
in the mirror.

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.

I see, not even an attempt to post a cite for your claim. Figures.



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.

So you have not tried to read up on the subject?

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.

We don't need to. Scientists have done that, and continue to do that
every day.


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.

You really are an idiot McClueless. Small wonder nobody ever comes
forward to support you in your stupid claims.


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.

Will you ever start telling the truth McClueless? Just for once could
we have a post from you without a single lie in it? Go on, I dare you.

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

Of course it isn't, Most rock doesn't contain fossiles.

and
stratigraphy. It's all based on finding the rocks we want to confirm
that dates that we already agree upon.

Another day another pack of lies - just what we have come to expect
from McClueless.

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

Sig length MORON - watch it!

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... 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: Small book for identifying rocks
    ... I live in the East Midlands of the UK, ... most have a general geology section too). ... Trying a search on "Field Guide Fossils" ... This one looks decent - one book for rocks and ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Re: Faulty reasoning
    ... said that there is a Haeckel chart in a geology textbook. ... There is no "deep dark secret" moron. ... rocks that make up the planet. ... Do they McClueless? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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 ... about how geology and dating rocks works. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading