Why Won't They Carbon Date This?
by Perry 246 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
DagothUr
Perry, you call that "abuse"??? Dozens of people call you "stupid", not just me. Is Jeebus paying you something to be so?
Those pictures you showed fall into the same category. The first one could represent anything, the second (Khmer) one could aswell represent a rynocerus or a hipo with the sun rising from behind him or with the world on his back. The Khmer mythology is luxuriant and so is the Amerindian one. My point stands. While those artistic representations may seem to the untrained eye as dinosaur representations, they are in fact something else. Careful research would certainly prove this point. I wonder why only Perry and a handful of religious loonies are now seeing dinosaurs living with people? And why now? Is there a new trend among the creationists: "Let's really force ourselves to see how ridiculous can we become"? You are losing ground on the scientific battlefield and you come with these stink-bombs, hoping to make converts on this God-blessed forum?
-
ziddina
"...The discovery of living coelacanths proved to be a profound embarrassment for those trying to use evolution to interpret the geologic record. It was especially embarrassing for those who, based on fossilized specimens, had earlier proposed the coelacanth as a prime candidate for the kind of fish that would have first crawled out of the oceans to dwell on land. Yet the discovery of a fish that was supposed to have been extinct for millions of years, one that some paleontologists had hoped was a vital missing link in the supposed evolutionary chain, hasn't led many to question their assumptions regarding the supposed evolutionary timetable. ..."
Whoever wrote that blather apparently wasn't aware of all the "living fossils" that paleontologists have known about for well over 100 years:
Sharks
Cockroaches
Silverfish
Horseshoe crabs
Dragonflies
mosquitoes
Kelp
Ferns, especially "horsetail" ferns
grasshoppers
mayflies
Ginko trees
Yew trees
Sequoia trees
and many, many more....
Most of these creatures still exist in the same form as in the fossil record - except for sharks and crabs. Some body types and adaptations are adequate to ensure the creatures' survival throughout millions of years with little to no further adaptation.
About the coelacanth being the "prime candidate for the kind of fish that would have first crawled out of the oceans to dwell on land. ..."
What, the author of that piece has never heard of "mud skippers"???? Another great example of a fish that REGULARLY crawls out onto land. And people have known about them for well over a century...
If the mud-skipper's ancestors were among the first to actually crawl out onto land, that adaptation worked sufficiently well for SOME of them to continue the behavior...
On the other hand, for some OTHER group of proto-amphibians - the need to do more than occasionally crawl onto land prompted evolutionary adaptations - and often such adaptations take place when a life form is attempting to take advantage of a new biological 'niche' - something that provides better food supplies, shelter, breeding advantages, and so on.
And that's about all I'm going to say... As Mr. Freeze said, there's no sense when arguing with someone who believes in "magic" - er, "Miracles...
-
Perry
The Bonaparte Basin, Australia.
This one is fairly complete in that all "geologic period" are present but it in no way qualifies as a complete column, since there are numerous gaps when the strata are spread out on the geologic column chart.
There seems to be cases of interbedding that go between periods. They are at Devonian / Carboniferous and Triassic / Jurassic. There may be others as well. There are also cases of interbedding spanning large portion of periods that should still be separated by 10's of millions of years. They occur in the Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary.
This means that the evidence suggests that this column formed allot more rapidly than the geologic column suggests. I can find no reference to how any of the Rock layers were assigned their respective ages but at the same time I can find no reference to fossils, so it is doubtful that they were used. This means that this site shows nothing about fossil order.
Leolaia,
The above reference indicates that this basis is lacking in fossils. Does your report claim fossils in all layers?
The basis fact remains regardless - that the geologic column as represented in textbooks is found nowhere on earth. (regarding the ages) . One of the problems is that if you take the maximum layers assigned to a particular label and add them all together you come up with a geologic column 100 to 200 miles thick! This must be assumed with vertical deposition.
The crust is the most outer layer of the Earth. Underneath the ocean where the crust is thinner it averages between 4-6 miles thick. On continents the average thickness of the Earth's crust is 20-25 miles thick. You can find more information here: http://mediatheek.thinkquest.nl/~ll125/e... So the original column, if it existed must have been deeper that the earth's crust. I can't accept that. So not only is 99.6% of the earth's surface devoid of the supposed geologic column, the few places where it is claimed is extremely thin, representing just a few percentage points of the original in depth. This of course the assuming the vertical layering inherent in the theory. However horizontal layering as found in the movement of water is a much more plausible answer. The current geologic column view as found in textbooks requires the removal of 80 to 99% of the evidence, and then that lack of evidence is then used to prove its validity. Of course this cannot be replicated. But layering outcrops can be easily replicated with water movement causing horizontal deposits as opposed to the vertical in the traditional view. Note the naturally occuring layers below.
Additionally fossils are regulary found in layers they aren't supposed to be in requiring the "index" fossils that date them to be constantly modified to fit the paradigm. Conventional textbooks paint a picture of the earth in a blender slowly over millions of years. However the period of change to support this would surely run into the billions of years. As previously noted many previous index fossils have been found alive today. What about the ones that died out only a few hundred years ago, which we could reasonably expect? Are we to assume the the few that are still alive that were previously thought extinct 300 million years ago are the only ones? I can't accept that. Scientists are just people like us susceptible to sociological, political and financial influences. I am not suggesting that all science is bad, just the falsely called science. The now discredited global warming hoax that involved the global collaboration of scientists and the support of the peer review process is good reason to do our own investigation. A google video search of the geologic column problems yields a lot. Does anyone have any thoughts on the halos found in granite in the video below? How could they appear as found in granite except by creation? http://www.halos.com/videos/0001-FingerprintsofCreationEnglish-216k.htm -
HintOfLime
How could they appear as found in granite except by creation?
If you are genuinely interested in the answer to this, go educate yourself. Go do the research for yourself and learn something. Instead you find crap on the Internet that you don't understand, and you post it here - as if your inability to do basic research and find answers for yourself is somehow amazing concrete proof of your god. It isn't. It's just some random internet guy admiting he doesn't understand crap, and that he is easily pursuaded by other people who don't understand crap. How amazing is that?
- Lime
-
cptkirk
Polonium haloes are found only in rocks which contain myrmekite, a replacement mineral intergrowth - a clear indication that the rock is not "primordial."
next.
-
EntirelyPossible
Remember the formula Mr. Freeze - the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. The rocks are meaningless without the fossils to date them according to uniformitarianists.
Yeah... that's not the method, dumbass. Stating it over and over will not make you any more right or less stupid.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
-
Perry
If you are genuinely interested in the answer to this, go educate yourself.
Where? Trust the internet? His discoveries were published in scientific journals and he claims that it stands unrefuted in those scientific journals here: It is easy to find anything on the internet that is not peer reviewed... not that that is fool proof by any means. Diamonds are reproducable in a lab, my wife has some. Why not granite with the halos? Just reproduce it if it can be done. It remains an interesting enigma.
In any review of scientific discoveries, it is the scientists themselves (from my point of view) that is by far the most interesting to observe. These sociological observations provide a frightening portrait of human deficiencies in determining truth.
Perhaps the GREATEST EXAMPLE of the sociological forces at work on scientists is found in the video below.
The information presented in this video series by reputable scientists is absolutely shocking by any possible measure of civility and academic integrity.
It illustrates the vast reaches that scientists will go to in order to avoid the notion that man and his home the earth is unique in any way. This video does not support a creationist wordview at all, but an alternate materialist worldview.
In a nut shell here's the problem: Back when Hubble discovered other galaxies, he noticed a red shift of light from galaxies apparently traveling away from earth. However, he noticed that ALL were re-shifted no matter where he looked. So, the expanding universe along with dark matter and all kinds of wild fantastic theories were advanced to account for the fact that all were red shifted. At "all possible costs" the idea of a unique center was to be avoided to account for this observation. So, basically the prevailing view is that space itself is expanding so that no matter where a persons observes in the universe.... all galaxies appear red-shifted and moving away from the observer.
However, other observations show different red signatures from objects apparently close to each other ...... inferring that the "red shift" isn't caused by travel speed but by some other as yet unknown phenonoma.
In other words, one camp of evolutionists claim that a far simpler explanation is now available and that all the wild complicated theories of the expanding universe camp violates Occams Razor at least and that their theories stand utterly destroyed at most.
Again, it is the sociology of scientists that I highlight here. It is absolutely fascinating to see evolutionists charge other evolutionists with the exact same intellectual crimes that creationists have been subjected to for decades.
I would personally rename the video "When Scientists Studied Themselves" - No truth loving person can watch this video and be the same.
-
OnTheWayOut
Perry, your video hits an important fact. In 1905, scientists believed the whole of the universe was just the Milky Way and all the stars that could be seen in our night sky. The point is that Man hasn't realized all the answers yet. We are in our infancy of answering the tough questions.
I won't even bother to point out the flaws in your psuedo-science references. It's enough for you to say that Man cannot explain everything about fossils and dinosaurs and various other things. You automatically default to "God did it" when Man cannot answer.
Even the Big Bang Theory- It's probably not correct. I grant that. Neither was the last popular theory of the origins of the universe and maybe the next one won't be correct either. Perhaps, way after you and I are dead, Man will actually be able to know how the universe began. But Man is filling in the gaps pretty good as far as things on earth go.
Do yourself a favor. Examine religion, the Bible, all theology as you are with a critical eye toward science. Instead of simply saying "God did it" as if He sprinkled magic pixie dust anytime something happened, admit that belief doesn't satisfy your questions any better than science. I pick on you because I see potential in you. You are searching and asking. But you have to take the blinders off. "God did it" is not an answer.
And please please notice what you do here on JWN. You throw in your problem with science and ignore the contributions of others. Instead of dwelling on a matter and really looking at what everyone has to say, you simply switch to your next problem with science. Go back to what people said about your origin question.
Additionally fossils are regulary found in layers they aren't supposed to be in requiring the "index" fossils that date them to be constantly modified to fit the paradigm. Conventional textbooks paint a picture of the earth in a blender slowly over millions of years. However the period of change to support this would surely run into the billions of years. As previously noted many previous index fossils have been found alive today. What about the ones that died out only a few hundred years ago, which we could reasonably expect? Are we to assume the the few that are still alive that were previously thought extinct 300 million years ago are the only ones? I can't accept that. Scientists are just people like us susceptible to sociological, political and financial influences. I am not suggesting that all science is bad, just the falsely called science. The now discredited global warming hoax that involved the global collaboration of scientists and the support of the peer review process is good reason to do our own investigation. A google video search of the geologic column problems yields a lot. Does anyone have any thoughts on the halos found in granite in the video below? How could they appear as found in granite except by creation?