Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- From: wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:13:41 -0700
On Oct 10, 12:45 pm, Pahu <pah...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Geologic Column
Practically nowhere on Earth can one find the so-called "geologic
column" (a). Most "geologic periods" are missing at most continental
locations. Only 15-20% of Earth's land surface has even one-third of
these periods in the correct order (b). Even within the Grand Canyon,
150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the
assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious.
a. "We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything
like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column
in any one place." Ager, Stratigraphical Record, p. 48.
as a non-geologist, i'm curious about why one WOULD expect to find
this. if this is a creationist retort to science, it falls flat.
Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Are
Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
To estimate a date prior to the beginning of written records, one must
assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the
clock's initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been
disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated,
overlooked, or invalid.
http://www.creationscience.com/
gee....our understanding of the physics that underlie these
assumptions worked well enough at hiroshima and nagasaki.
creationists are 14th century theocrats masquerading as human beings.
.
- References:
- Science Disproves Evolution
- From: Pahu
- Science Disproves Evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: On a proposal to make a correction to Wikipedia's definition of "Evolution".
- Next by Date: Re: What does louann look like?
- Previous by thread: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Science Disproves Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
