Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Phoenix]

Thanks Julie, I did provide an article a number of pages back that discusses most of these methods and the problems with them. None are conclusively accurate, and most have been demonstrated to be inaccurate by hundreds of millions of years.

That's what you want to believe because it suits the tight confines of your belief system.

Geochronology has many techniques, all have their limitations and that is taken into consideration when evaluating the age of geologic materials. Often multiple techniques are used to determine the materials age and to eliminate any errors of one technique over the other.

But what you do is put up a technique like Carbon Dating which has limitations beyond the age of 40,000 years as proof that the science of geochronology is flawed because you've deliberately chosen an inappropriate technique that would cause unacceptable errors in determining materials that are significantly older than 40,000 years.

This is the degree of your charlatanism TV, a deliberate and carefully crafted misappropriation of the facts.
It's not only geochronology in your sights but every branch of physics, biology, astronomy, paleontology and every other credible science.

Somehow you need to be dragged from your pre-Copernican world...

[Vangelovski]

Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish.1 Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.2 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone! For example, there’s only one Stegosaurus skull that has been found, and many of the horse species are each represented by only one specimen of one tooth!3

1. Wise, K.P., ‘The Flood and the fossil record’, an informal talk given at the Institute for Creation Research, San Diego (USA) on August 17, 1988.

2. Lewin, R., 1990. New Scientist, 128(1745), p. 30.

3. Wise, Ref. 6.

[Vangelovski]

That's what you want to believe because it suits the tight confines of your belief system.

Geochronology has many techniques, all have their limitations and that is taken into consideration when evaluating the age of geologic materials. Often multiple techniques are used to determine the materials age and to eliminate any errors of one technique over the other.

But what you do is put up a technique like Carbon Dating which has limitations beyond the age of 40,000 years as proof that the science of geochronology is flawed because you've deliberately chosen an inappropriate technique that would cause unacceptable errors in determining materials that are significantly older than 40,000 years.

This is the degree of your charlatanism TV, a deliberate and carefully crafted misappropriation of the facts.
It's not only geochronology in your sights but every branch of physics, biology, astronomy, paleontology and every other credible science.

Somehow you need to be dragged from your pre-Copernican world...

Actually, radiocarbon dating was only ONE example I provided. If you bothered reading my posts, you will find research on others as well.

[Phoenix]

Actually, radiocarbon dating was only ONE example I provided. If you bothered reading my posts, you will find research on others as well.

But that's only part of the story TV, you only ever provide part of the story.

NOBODY hides the limitations of any of these techniques, what you failed to mention and what is vitally important is that not one single technique is ever used in any credible research...the final age is determined only after many different techniques have been used, compared and re-tested

[Vangelovski]

But that's only part of the story TV, you only ever provide part of the story.

NOBODY hides the limitations of any of these techniques, what you failed to mention and what is vitally important is that not one single technique is ever used in any credible research...the final age is determined only after many different techniques have been used, compared and re-tested

So you're saying that if numerous flawed dating methods are used (instead of just one) we will gain an accurate date?

[Phoenix]

So you're saying that if numerous flawed dating methods are used (instead of just one) we will gain an accurate date?

No I'm not saying that...you are, you're looking for the faults, not me.

Scientists will use multiple techniques and the most appropriate for the sample at hand. This is a very time consuming and costly endeavour which is open to scrutiny from the scientific community...every measurement technique has an acceptable tolerance range for error and repeatibility but what you do is to deliberately mock science with ridiculous examples of errors in the order of "hundreds of millions of years"...that's just fuckin bullshit TV.

[George S.]

Are we really questioning the desgigner & master of the universe??We want answers to the unknown.I had a chat years ago whether the bible contains all the answers that we might ask the answer is no.I would say that now is not the time for god to be revealing everything even though we yearn for it.I think in the next life we are going to know everything because we will be as god.If you want all your zany questions you have to wait.

[Vangelovski]

Analysis of the Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data

A new approach : paleohydraulic analysis by Guy Berthault
When I started my experiments on strata formation I was surprised to find how little work had been done on the subject in the past. Of course, sediments had been examined and flume experiments performed in connection with building and other projects, but none with the object of explaining the mechanics of stratification. I searched the data banks but found little to help with my research.

I began to realise that the basic principles of superposition, continuity and initial horizontality laid down in the seventeenth had been accepted, albeit with development, virtually without question. There seemed to have been little attempt to examine the actual mechanics involved.

Yet a few simple experiments, first with laminae and later with strata revealed that the time needed for micro or macro strata form was of quite a different order to that generally accepted. The implications were far-reaching both as concerns the geological time-scale and the fossil record. It was not until 1999 that there seemed to be an awakening to the idea that geological ages are measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit and not by biological revolutions or orogeny.

Prof. Gabriel Gohau of the French Geological Society confirmed this fact in his book A History of Geology (1999):

« Ce qui mesure le temps, ce sont les durées de sédimentation, sur lesquelles tout le monde est plus ou moins d’accord, et non celles des orogenèses et des « révolutions » biologiques. »

(Translation: Time is measured by the time taken for sediments to deposit, a fact upon which everybody is more or less agreed, and not by orogenesis or “biological “revolutions”)

Prof. Gohau mentioned in his work how Charles Lyell was influenced in the construction of the geological time scale by his belief in biological « revolutions» occurring over 240 millions of years.

In the 20th century this figure was replaced by radiometric “absolute” dating of 525 million years. Such a figure is based upon the belief that igneous rocks can be dated radiometrically. Criticisms of radiometric dating have been growing over recent years and following the chronology shown by our experiments I have looked at the basic premises upon which such dating is based. There indeed seem to be good physical reasons to challenge it.

In his book “Radioelements” (Masson 1966) Daniel Blanc wrote:

“no variation of the radioactive constant has been observed whatever the experimental conditions, showing that it is independent of the conditions in which the radio-elements are placed.”

This is particularly the case for temperature and pressure which determine the change of state of magma to crystalline rock. Radioactivity would not, therefore, appear to be affected by the change of state; consequently it could not be used to date an igneous rock at the moment of its crystallisation.

Moreover, the elements present in the rock at the time of crystallisation came from the magma in which gravitation determined their position: they need not necessarily, therefore, be parent and daughter from the same radioactive element.

The problem of exaggerated time scales resulted from the work of Nicolas Stenon, originator of geological principles in the seventeenth century. Stenon did not take into account the effect of a turbulent water current on the formation of strata. His principles were based upon his observations but since no hydraulic laboratories existed at the time his principles were not tested experimentally.

Our experiments on the formation of strata are fundamental because they demonstrate, ‘inter alia’, that in a continuous turbulent current many superposed strata form simultaneously and progress together in the direction of the current; they do not form successively as believed originally. These experiments explain a mechanism of strata building, showing empirically the rapid formation of strata.

The important advances in sequence stratigraphy that have been taking place during the period of our research harmonise with our experiments. For instance, systems tracts composed of several strata are considered isochronous by sequential stratigraphy; a fact that we have demonstrated in the laboratory.

The paleovelocity of current below which particles of given size are deposited and the corresponding capacity of sedimentary transport of the current can be determined experimentally. These two criteria ascertain the time required for sequence deposition. Consequently, recent paleohydraulic analyses undertaken by our colleagues in Russia confirm the shorter time for sequences to deposit than the geological time attributed to it.

As reported in the latest publication (G.Berthault, A.Lalomov, M.Tugarova., Lithological and Mineral Resources. Vol.1, 2011) the time of sedimentation of the St. Petersburg sequence represents only 0.05% of the time refered to by the geologic time scale.

We believe the foregoing shows the need for a fundamental revision of geological chronology integrating the new data and based upon observation checked by experiment.

Guy Berthault.

[Vangelovski]

No I'm not saying that...you are, you're looking for the faults, not me.

Scientists will use multiple techniques and the most appropriate for the sample at hand. This is a very time consuming and costly endeavour which is open to scrutiny from the scientific community...every measurement technique has an acceptable tolerance range for error and repeatibility but what you do is to deliberately mock science with ridiculous examples of errors in the order of "hundreds of millions of years"...that's just fuckin bullshit TV.

No, its not BS. I've provided various examples of experimentation - including the one just above. You've just given me sweeping statements without anything to back them up.

[Vangelovski]

Further to the article above:

The full details can be found here: http://www.sedimentology.fr/

A team of Russian sedimentologists, directed by Alexander Lalomov (Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Ore Deposits) applied paleohydraulic analyses to geological formations in Russia. One example was the publication of a first report in 2007 by the “Lithology and Mineral Resources”, journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It concerned the Crimean Peninsular. It showed that the time of sedimentation of the sequence studied corresponded to a virtually instantaneous episode, whereas according to stratigraphy it took several millions of years. Moreover, a second report concerning the North-West Russian plateau in the St. Petersburg region shows that the time of sedimentation was much shorter than that attributed to it by the stratigraphic time-scale: 0.05% of the time.

The third report concerning the the Ural determines equally the time of sedimentation.

I concluded an agreement with the Institute of Kazan for the Moskovite team of sedimentologists to determine the paleohydraulic conditions of the local transgressive sequence studied in 1868 by Golovkinskii, founder of sequence stratigraphy.

This forth report determines equally the time of sedimentation.

We presented their report to the 33rd International Congress of Geology held in Oslo in August 2008, and in Ekaterinburg (Russia), in October at the 5th Conference on Lithology.

A new series of experiments was arranged with the St. Petersburg Institute of Hydrology to study erosion of different types of rocks (sandstone, limestone) at higher velocities of water current up to 27m\s to ascertain their rate of erosion over time and to provide the formation of conglomerates, to know the critical velocity of erosion of conglomerates seen in sandstone at the base of transgressive sequences. Initially, the water current was parallel to the surface plane of the sedimentary sample. The results show that at a velocity of around 25m\s, erosion was nil; where the period of the experiment was less than an hour. However, when the period reached 18h the erosion was around 2 grams. Experiment 25 was done with a sample whose surface was at an angle of 2.5 degrees to the direction of the current. In this case erosion reached 6.6g. in 18h.

[Phoenix]

Are we really questioning the desgigner & master of the universe??We want answers to the unknown.I had a chat years ago whether the bible contains all the answers that we might ask the answer is no.I would say that now is not the time for god to be revealing everything even though we yearn for it.I think in the next life we are going to know everything because we will be as god.If you want all your zany questions you have to wait.

What zany questions GS...?

We're discussing geochronology as a valid science that puts into perspective certain 'divine' questions such as young V old Earth theories.

I really struggle why so many of you guys refuse to accept scientific fact in preference for the literal interpretation of the Bible...I wonder how strong your faith really is

[Phoenix]

Here's an interesting link to an article on the age of the Earth...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

"These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent".

what do you reckon TV...?

[George S.]

well p science makes more unanswered questions that it answers.look acience has really proved that you can't create something out of nothing.Also the universe had a begining & how will it end???

[Phoenix]

well p science makes more unanswered questions that it answers.look acience has really proved that you can't create something out of nothing.Also the universe had a begining & how will it end???

GS, you can't approach science with your head buried in the sand, back in Vangelovski's time, the Sun revolved around the Earth, the Earth was flat and it was only 6000 years old...today we know differently.

[Vangelovski]

Here's an interesting link to an article on the age of the Earth...

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

"These calculations result in an age for the Earth and meteorites, and hence the Solar System, of 4.54 billion years with an uncertainty of less than 1 percent".

what do you reckon TV...?

Phoenix,

Did you take note of the assumptions they made? They were honest about them and clearly stated them up front.

Further, did you take note of the dating method they used?

Having noted those assumptions and dating methods, did you take the evidence posted above and in other posts into consideration?