JonF

Sorry, Davie-doodles, it's not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove yourself right. Let's see your evidence for the agreement between different dating methods being due to scientist's preconceptions. Hint -- failure to report any number of radiocarbon dates from Suigetsu doesn't explain why the different dating methods agree.

Dave Hawkins

No actually ... if you'll recall ... it was Constant Mews -- who you apparently agree with blindly in spite of the fact that you don't know him and he makes poor arguments -- that was trying to demonstrate that Genesis is false ... and he was trying to do so using Lake Suigetsu. Generally if someone is trying to demonstrate something, the burden is on them to do just that ... demonstrate it. So ... if he -- or you -- would like to demonstrate that the Lake Suigetsu scientists methods and reasoning were sound ... I'm all ears.

improvius

Folks, I think what Dave is trying to say is

shirley knott

And do take note that dave has never proved anyone wrong about anything. Not on the net, anyway.
Dave has, however, proven himself to be incapable of mustering honest argument, honest remorse at error, correct, accurate, and careful quoting, or any of the other accoutrements of civilized humanity.
And he continues to run away from the fact that the overturn of Biblical (literalist) creationism was done by those with a vested interest in it, but a stronger (and Biblically inspired) vested interest in truth and reality.
What were Lyell's religion views Dave? What do they say about your pitiful after-the-fact rewriting of history and contemptible calumny against your betters?
That any church would have you is as strong a condemnation of chuches and religion as I need.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

Pappy Jack

This has nothing to do with consilience, Dave - and you'll need to do more than hand-wave and try to shift the burden of proof to persuade me that your arguments have any validity, by the way - but goes directly to your conception of the forces that shaped the Earth.

I was browsing through a copy of National Geographic some days ago, Vol.83, No.1, January 1983, to be exact. On pages 16-17 of that edition there is a photograph of Argentine geologist Ricardo Alonso spreadeagled across a vertical rockface in the Andes. He is pointing to sets of dinosaur footprints tracking across that rockface, which itself shows clear evidence of wave-rippling. There appear to be several layers of rock which have been exposed by erosion - I count at least five - each of which shows evidence of wave-action.

As your YEC case seems to require that the Andes formed post-Flud, what mechanisms do you invoke to explain this phenomenon, bearing in mind that they all took place somewhat less than 4500 years ago? Where, for example, is the one- (or two- ?) mile layer of sediment that these exposed layers should be either above or below (I'm afraid that I'm confused as to which it should be)?

Steviepinhead

Ah, it's gratifying when one resistant neuron in an ever-changing world stays the same, refusing to bow to the winds and currents of reason, logic, fact, observation, and consilience.

Here's our long lost tard-meister, back at the top of his unique game. Just when we were beginning to doubt, just when we were beginning to waver, just when we were beginning to abandon all hope and deliquesce into the depths of despond.

Dave is back!

And just smell the stank of the steaming pile of tard that proves it!

And, no, to whoever asked, Dave has never seen the Grand Canyon. He refuses to even deal with photos of it, which show vertical rock walls and looping bends, a far cry from the straightly-braided courses of the glacial outburst floods that carved the Palouse Scablands or that, arguably, carved the English Channel.

And, no, dave has not seen Mt. St. Helens, where the Toutle and other rivers have carved braided channels through piles of finger-pokable ash (not rock), leaving recumbent banks (not vertical rock walls).

And, no, dave has not viewed the Washington scablands, or the Columbia Basin Basalt Flows through which those channels were carved. Colonnades of basalt--on which I just went sport climbing the weekend of July 14-15--which are dated to approx. 12-13 MYA.

All you've got to do is look at the multiple, superimposed layers of these basalt colonnades to recognize that the top layers are heavily eroded and crumbling and the bottom layers are still firm and intact, to realize--not only that they have been subject to differential erosion over long lengths of time but, more devastatingly to dave's claims, that the various layers of colonnades--I could count ten obvious ones between river level and hillside sediment from my B&B window--were emplaced in multiple events requiring time for the underlying layer to be vented, spread, cool, and crystallize (and, often, show signs of erosion and leveling) before the subsequent layer was emplaced.

Needless to say, the "scabland" courses were cut through this basalt bedrock much more recently, dated to the, ahem, multiple outbursts from repeated fillings and emptyings of glacial lake Missoula, which are dated to ~20-13 KYA. Oops! Which, ah, just happens to be the era of the most recent set of advances and retreats of the Laurentide glaciation. Fancy that little bit of consilience, which of course completely douses dave's claims that there was a post-"Flud" glaciation in the single-digit KYs ago.

But then, dave has never taken a look at the colonnades or the scablands, or seen the thousands of feet of sediment deposited on top of the colonnades by the streams flowing east out of the Cascade Crest.

Likewise, dave has never bothered to look at--or absorb the implications from the mere existence of--the "bathtub rings" formed by the multiple fillings and emptyings of glacial lake Missoula. These rings are right there on the hillsides of western Montana and the panhandle of Idaho, visible from major highways, dave. They were caused by each iteration of the lake having been there for long enough to have eroded a new and unique lakeshore.

Time, dave. It takes time to erode each of those multiple lake shores. Time that is the enemy of your pretense at an "argument."

Regardless of dating, Dave, the mere fact that there are multiple eroded lakeshores and multiple outburst events, some of them resulting in higher or lower floods, which have in turn incised higher and lower cuts and flow-scars in the passes and saddles and channels found in the scablands of Eastern Washington disprove all on their lonesome your claim that the Columbia floods were the result of either a singular Noachian "Flud" or of a short, time-limited post-Flud "Ice Age."

Needless to say, dave has never seen the English channel, or he would realize that, as deadman and others have already indicated, that he has the same problem there: what formation is the channel incised through, dave? How long did those uber-thick chalk layers take to form? How could they have had time to be laid down in a one-year "Flud" event, only to be disrupted again a few hundred years later by an ice-age outburst? Why do neither the dates of the chalk layers nor the dates of the North Sea outburst event align with the dates of the Columbia basalt layers or the dates of the Missoula outburst events? While, all along, the methods used to differentially date those events are killingly consilient?

Heck, dave can't be bothered to travel within half a day's drive of his home to view several different paleosol locations provided to him on multiple occasions by poster Elka on dawkins.net.

Why would anyone think he would take the risk of actually inspecting the Grand Canyon, the Mt. St. Helens eruption, the Columbia Gorge, the Washington Scablands, Glacial Lake Missoula, or the English Channel?

C'mon, folks, this is dave!

Look at the actual evidence with his own eyes?!? :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Anyway, Dave, welcome back from Mexico! It's good to know that you have not yet forsaken your mission to open the hearts and minds of the masses to the utter inanity of your prized "hypothesis"...!

And thanks for so outstandingly allaying all our concerns by delivering this latest, redolent mastodon-sized deposit of tard.

Jayco

:banghead:

Calilasseia

I just took a look at this.

* Headdesk *

Dave ... I am in the UK. You are in Missouri. A distance of around 4,000 miles separates us. But we happen to be sharing the same period of time on this Earth. My posts on this board sometimes arrive within one or two minutes either side of yours. Therefore we are contemporaneous entities.

Now, given this, what on Earth makes you think that corals have to be in the same place as Lake Suigetsu in order for them to be valid time correlation artefacts? They could be 12,000 miles apart, but so long as they are contemporaneous, that is all that matters.

Think about that Dave. It's not that hard to do, trust me.

Once you have worked out how that applies, then you might be in a position to start addressing the issue of assigning dates. But, and I emphasise this, only if you acquire some basic facts first. And no, that does NOT mean a quick trip to AiG for another quick shot of dreck pretending to be science. Then, once you have acquired some genuine knowledge about how dates are assigned, you are then required to address the issue that you have been presented with for over a year - namely the excellent agreement of independently derived dating metrics, and why, in order to be able to dismiss them as invalid, you not only need to demonstrate that they are all wrong, but that they are all wrong in a particular manner such that the errors they generate are all the same, and present a mechanism whereby this can occur.

Oh, by the way, the "worldwide flood stratum" you claim is present? I've had a thread extant for a month here asking you to point to any or all of a list of geological features and provide an explanation as to whether or not these constitute your "worldwide flood stratum" ... but somehow, I see that thread has remained unvisited by you since day one. I wonder why ... ?

JonF

I'm not trying to prove that Genesis is false, I'm pointing out that yuo have made a claim and not supported it, and tried to shift the burden of proof. As usual. What Constant Mews may or may not have done is irrelevant, and you've gone beyond what was discussed in your debate with him. You're the one with the claim, and I quote:

"[The reason why all those different methods agree is] They all agree with the scientists' preconceptions"

That's a positive claim, so far unsupported. Go for it, Davie-pie. You can't support it 'cause it's just something you made up to avoid really addressing the evidence.

JEST2ASK

Uniformitarianism
From 1830 to 1833 his multi-volume Principles of Geology was published. The work's subtitle was "An Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface by Reference to Causes now in Operation", and this explains Lyell's impact on science. He was, along with the earlier John Playfair, the major advocate of the then-controversial idea of uniformitarianism, that the earth was shaped entirely by slow-moving forces acting over a very long period of time. This was in contrast to catastrophism, a geologic idea that went hand-in-hand with age of the earth as implied by biblical chronology. In various revised editions (twelve in all, through 1872), Principles of Geology was the most influential geological work in the middle of the 19th century, and did much to put geology on a modern footing. For his efforts he was knighted in 1848, then made a baronet in 1864.


If I was not so saddened by the fact AFDave has honestly presented his core beliefs (and by extension those of so many other theists) the post by improvius would be comical ... as it is is I can only take hope in the advances humans have made in spite of such (seemimgly) wide spread acceptance (at least in the US ) of Biblical literalism. :banghead: