Posted on 02/28/2005 10:31:47 AM PST by Right Wing It
There are pictures on the website
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=7&itemid=2698
Explain radioactive fission product dating.
FYI Ping
"Will the skeptics accept the proof provided by this amazing piece of scientific evidence? "
Given the young earth creationist stance of ignoring and refuting all geological evolutionary evidence, I see no reason for evolutionaries to accept this "proof".
Huh? What does that have to do with a fishing reel stuck in a "300 million year old" rock? Maybe you need to start a new thread?
I hope you realize that by posting, as "proof" of the Biblical account of creation, an article with a picture of a fishing reel obviously hammered into slits in a rock, with some holes drilled for the rods of the frame, you have done far more damage to your cause than a hundred evolutionary geologists. This is pure fakery. The slits are precision formed, probably with a high-pressure water/sand cutter, the kind used to cut patterns through steel plate. The rock does not form around the reel in a way that it would if the reel had been buried in sediment.
LOL So THAT'S the evolutionist's answer? This is absolute proof that the evolutionists method of dating is extremely flawed, and you wonder why creationists don't take their guesses as gospel? Wonder no more.
That is really interesting. Thanks for posting.
ROFL. Getting nervous are we? So you can tell that it's a fake from a picture, yet the the members of geology department from the University of Tennessee, including the department head with a doctorate degree couldn't, even though they had physical possession of the "rock and reel". Wow, you must be good!
It is "embedded" in a metamorphic rock, that is, a rock which has changed form due to physical processes, usually heat and/or pressure. The process would have destroyed the reel or any similar man-made object.
"This is absolute proof that the evolutionists method of dating is extremely flawed, and you wonder why creationists don't take their guesses as gospel? Wonder no more."
I wonder no more, believe me. Trying to convince a creationoid of the myriad errors in such Biblical accounts as Noah's Ark (for example) is entertaining, sure, but clearly a waste of time, as most creationoids are simply afraid of the truth.
My response that you posted to was in jest - should've put /sarcasm tags - sorry.
Wow - having actually clicked on the link and looked at the picture, you're right- that's a bad fake.
Too bad Arthur wasn't a fisherman...
"ROFL. Getting nervous are we? So you can tell that it's a fake from a picture, yet the the members of geology department from the University of Tennessee, including the department head with a doctorate degree couldn't, even though they had physical possession of the "rock and reel". Wow, you must be good!"
Or so this group claims. There have been lies in the past from creationist organizations. I'd like to see this specimen myself, and I'd like to see it examined closely by true experts and have the report come from some source other than a creationist organization.
Am I a geologist? Nope, but I've seen some odd things in rocks, and they always have had an explanation. It's amazing what a flowing river can do.
"So you can tell that it's a fake from a picture, yet the the members of geology department from the University of Tennessee, including the department head with a doctorate degree "
A. That's the University of Tennessee - Chattanooga, hardly a bastion of higher-learning, although a fine school nonetheless.
B. Aren't these professors the same liberal, left-leaning, commie whiners that are usually complained about on this forum?
C. Why haven't the steel parts rusted away on this fake, like all other steel exposed to the elements for 75+ years on earth have done? Is this some sort of magic, rust-proof steel?
D. I have the most trouble believing that anyone living in eastern Tennessee 100+ years ago would've owned a Yankee-made Shakespeare reel.
Big deal. So a time traveller lost his fishing reel 300 million years ago...
Wonder what he was fishing for? I don't think the fishing was very good back them...
The counting of radioactive decay products in primordial rocks..granites, basalts, etc is a prime method of dating the age. It is based upon solid nuclear theory. Even if the assumptions in this method are off 50%, that still leaves a world 2 billion +years old.
Is the earth is really 4.5 billion years old?
The scientific evidence points to a resounding NO.
Geochronolgy scientists are aware of 70 different methods that can give us ideas of the earths age. These geological clocks are based on the obvious reality that natural processes occurring steadily throughout time produce cumulative and often measurable results. Although there is some speculation in all of these dating methods, they all do show evidence of a young earth.
For example, NASA experts expected that the moon, like the earth, was approximately 4.5 billion years old. They were expecting 54 feet of dust on the moon, so they built all their equipment with this in mind. They did not want their capsule to sink in the dust, so they built tall legs upon it. However, the astronauts found only an inch to three inches. This small amount of dust showed that the moon must be less than 10,000 years old.
Comets are literally blown apart by powerful solar winds every time they circle the sun. By measuring the observable rate of comet disintegration, we have found out that all short-period comets would be gone in as little as 10,000 years. There are up to five million comets still orbiting in our solar system, and they all have to be less than 10,000 years old. To explain this phenomena, evolutionists have to speculate that there is a nest of comets somewhere in the universe, but they have never seen it and there is no proof of it. This is bad science!
All oil and coal beds were caused by the catastrophic effects of the flood. Coal and oil are simply squashed plant and animal life. All oil pressure in rocks usually dissipates after 5000 years.
Scientists have calculated that all the continents of the Earth will be worn down to sea level by erosion in about 14 million years. The soil that does sustain life lies in a thin layer of an average depth of seven or eight inches over the face of the land. The earth beneath it is as dead and sterile as the moon. This thin film is all that stands between man and extinction. Scientists estimate that the combination of plant growth, bacterial decay, and erosion produces about six inches of top soil in 5,000 to 20,000 years.
At the present rate, the entire Mississippi River delta would have accumulated in only 5000 years. Geologists have recognized that it has taken 5000 years for the rim of Niagara Falls to erode from its original precipice. Scientists also have estimated the calcium carbonate remains of marine creatures in the warm oceans of our world could be accounted for entirely in the last few thousand years.
Evolutionists used to teach that it took thousands of years for stalactites to form, until stalactites under the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. were found to have grown to five feet in less than five years. How old are the oldest living plants alive today? The bristle cone pine trees in the White Mountains bordering California and Nevada that have been growing for about 5000 years.
The present population of the world at a 2% annual growth rate could easily be developed from a single family averaging 3.6 children in just 4,000 years. The population of the earth, at a 2% annual growth rate, from a single family averaging 3.6 children, would be at least 3,000 billion in one million years of history, which is enough to have at least a couple of dozen graves for every acre of earth. However, ancient bones are extremely rare.
Helium is steadily gathering in the outer reaches of our atmosphere and the experts insists that the accumulation cannot be over 10,000-15,00 years old. The moons distance from the earth is constantly increasing approximately two inches per year, which means the earth and moon would have been touching only two billion years ago. The suns diameter shrinks every hour by about five feet, which means that the earth would have been touching the sun 20 million years ago and it would have been too hot for life to even exist one million years ago.
Astronomers have seen the violent destruction of some stars, but they have never seen a star being born or evolve into a more complex structure. Yet they claim it happens and call this science. However, Astronomer Harold Slusher reports that a star cluster of four stars in the trapezium in the Orion nebula are moving away from each other from a common point at a very high speed. It appears the stars originated from a common point about 10,000 years ago.
No astronomer believes that stars originated before clusters itself. Hot and cool stars are often found in clusters together, and the cool stars should have been dead for a million years, yet they are present with young ones. Hot stars radiate 100,000 times faster than the sun, and the spiraling effect pulls things in all the faster, but many of them still have huge dust clouds surrounding them.
Excerpt from: http://maxpages.com/biblegems/Image_of_Monkeys
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.