Posted on 09/25/2003 2:46:02 PM PDT by HalfFull
Bunge, P. M., Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, B. Romanowicz and S. Grand (1998), Time scales and heterogeneous structure in geodynamic Earth models, Science, 280, 91-95.
Note the authors. Seems John Baumgardner is not listed. Hmmm....the plot thickens.
Drat! You had to go and tell him the secret! (I favor just leaving him lost when he gets lost.)
I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere. Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine. You are basically taking background noise outside the range of carbon-dating technology and trumpeting it as proof of your opinions.
The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position, which is basically proving your position with a negative.
Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution, so turn off the knee-jerk reactions.
Water pressure doesn't work like that. Considering that the ocean floor is fairly flat under thousands of feet of water, your theory doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny.
Watch an ocean in less than one year’s time erode 50 yards of beach front, then replace it before next summer.
And that sand is deposited somewhere else, and eventually forms sandstones of a structure that can be seen in the stratigraphic record. Which means that a different process other than the Flood put them there.
Erosion and sedimentary processes are mainly results of water. The global flood had lots of water! There is no other explaination for the sedimentary layers we observe in the geologic record.
Oh, poppycock. There are similar sedimentary layers forming around the world as we speak. Alluvial deposits in the Rockies. Deltaic deposits in the Mississippi Delta. Bar sandstones on barrier islands. Reef limestones in the tropics (try and reconcile Permian reef structures with the Flood). Oolitic limestones in the Bahamas. Deep water marine sediments all over ocean basins.
Don't say this at your local University, you might get a failing grade because you learned (believed) nothing the teacher has taught.
Nah, I'd get a failing grade for improper application of the scientific method - namely, forming a theory and then looking for evidence that only supports it, rather than looking at the evidence and forming the theory that best deals with the evidence.
Does that mean my skepticism regarding the Greek and Norse gods is based on faith? Is my disbelief in the teachings of Jim Jones based on faith?
I think you have set your hopes too high. ;^)
Perfect logic with imperfect premises is no better than imperfect logic with perfect premises..... Or so it seems.
Water pressure doesn't work like that. Considering that the ocean floor is fairly flat under thousands of feet of water, your theory doesn't hold up to modern scrutiny.
I was speculting, it sounds like you have proven this experiment to be true. Dangerous evolutionary logic.
And that sand is deposited somewhere else, and eventually forms sandstones of a structure that can be seen in the stratigraphic record. Which means that a different process other than the Flood put them there.
Oh, poppycock. There are similar sedimentary layers forming around the world as we speak. Alluvial deposits in the Rockies. Deltaic deposits in the Mississippi Delta. Bar sandstones on barrier islands. Reef limestones in the tropics (try and reconcile Permian reef structures with the Flood). Oolitic limestones in the Bahamas. Deep water marine sediments all over ocean basins.
And we find massive fossil beds were animal life was quickly buried and preserved in the modern sediments. NOT.
Nah, I'd get a failing grade for improper application of the scientific method - namely, forming a theory and then looking for evidence that only supports it, rather than looking at the evidence and forming the theory that best deals with the evidence.
Denial of the truth is unbecoming. Familiarize yourself with some of the real science that has been recently conducted in attempts to explain the evidence more scientifically.
A Modern Day Geological Understanding.
And for 3 years of accurate assessments regarding modern secular scientific papers, click here.
I did read it, as I have read similar nonsense. There could easily be a mechanism to re-create or replenish C14 within rocks (decay of naturally-occurring uranium, water percolation from above), just as there is process to create it in the atmosphere.
Well if you did read it, some things didn't sink in. The researchers said that the carbon was intrinsic. Now if you want to call him a liar..why not just do and get it over with.
From article: "This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin."
The Young Earth Creationists have a silly tendency to take any initially unexplainable phenomenon and adapt it as proof of their position,
Actually, the evolutionists have an even worse tenency...declare something true using such "scientific" term such as "could-of", "might-have beens", and "probablies". At least this researcher is using scientific instruments to measure actual carbon 14 intrinsic to the fossil under study.
Note that Potassium/Argon dating, which works on impervious crystals within rocks, works just fine.
There have been other threads on age-dating methods such as Potassium/Argon. . Basically, the assumptions associated with these dating methods are highly questionable. . Thus, the dating of anything using such dating methods cannot be trusted. (unless, or course, one likes the dates derived and doesn't mind faulty assumptions)..
Let me know, and I'll post a summary of the problems with methods such as P/A dating.
Oh, and BTW, I have my own issues with Darwinian evolution
Be curious to know what your issues are.
Uh, dude, you can't even get the topic straight. That has nothing to do with evolution - you're talking Structural Geology now. And, since you're speculating, I suggest you try to provide some data to back up your points, or else your speculation is nothing more than bullbiscuits.
And we find massive fossil beds were animal life was quickly buried and preserved in the modern sediments.
Oh, that's a good one. You've got all kinds of shells in those modern sediments, all kinds of tracks and, sometimes, tree stumps where barrier islands covered up swamps - but they're not fossils yet, because the sediments, being modern, haven't been lithified yet. But if you care to examine fossil barrier island sandstone, you'll find fossils.
Denial of the truth is unbecoming.
Then why do you engage in it?
Familiarize yourself with some of the real science that has been recently conducted in attempts to explain the evidence more scientifically.
No thanks, I get enough nonsense from the Clintons, I don't need any more. I study Geology on the side, I don't automatically accept evolutionary logic (or other aspects of geological theory, the history of plate techtonic theory being the classic example), so I'm naturally skeptical - but theory and research needs to meet a certain threshhold of veracity for me to bother with it. What you are peddling here comes nowhere close. You are entitled to your faith, and I won't belittle you for it, but when you project that faith into pseudoscience and present it for consideration, I'm gonna whump it up one wall and down the other. As I would for purported mainstream science that is shoddily done, such as global warming.
I think that organisms have the ability to react to environmental changes within their own lifetimes, and those changes can alter an organism's genetics, even if in a very slight manner, and those changes can be imparted into the next generation. Takes the randomness out of Darwinian theory. Also, I think the largest problem of standard evolutionary theory is the genetic imprint of instinct - if, once again, organisms can learn during their lifetimes and somehow impart that learning into their genetics, then instinct becomes much easier to pass along.
Emphasis on "appeared" here - there could easily be a mechanism for C14 contanimnation that is not well understood, or you could have the natural background radiation in rocks from other decaying elements such as U-238 cause a continuous re-formation of a certain base level of C14, just as C14 is formed by solar radiation - or C14 could be replenished by other factors such as gamma radiation. We simply don't know enough, but just because this question can't be answered now, it doesn't prove YOUR point. That's scientific analysis by proving with a negative, and we all know how reliable that is.
Funny, indeed! Here's the result page from a Yahoo! on the subject. Indeed, your reference shows up as one of 19. The first link up is the PubMed Abstract of the original Science article. But that one wouldn't do for you. It lists Baumgarnder.
The Science article is not directly available, but the coauthors Grand and Bunge can be seen listing Baumgardner as a fellow author. Hmmm! The plot indeed thickens. However, those data points wouldn't do for your purposes so you skipped those.
Number 5 is the one you skipped back here with, represting it as the true, canonical, and ONLY thing in the world on the subject. You didn't come back saying, "Well, one of nineteen sources lists all the other guys and not Baumgardner." That wouldn't be very impressive. The listener might assume it was some sort of clerical error, or that Baumgardner had after the fact caught some grief for the kind of schizo behavior he exhibits in simultaneously publishing articles supporting and attacking an old earth and asked to have his name removed from a listing or two. No, we don't want to distract the dummies.
So you have provided a nice model of ICR-style scholarship. Just take what's good. Whatever you do, don't say how much data you left behind on the discard heap. You just run in and say, "Look-a here what I got! No, don't look over there! Look-a here! Just look at this! Never mind that! Look at this! Did I say, 'Look at this?' What have we got here, some kind of attention deficit disorder? Look at me, Zippy! Look-a here!"
CLUE: I have not taken issue with your silly position so please stop directing this crap at me.
OK.
Of course. You can never prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any God. Your skepticism is based on your faith.
HINT: Jim Jones was a human, not a god.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.