Danny Denier:
Danny Denier post #433:
"Child."Danny Denier: "Child."
Danny Denier: "Child."
Danny Denier: "Child."
Still more of Danny boy's reliance on Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12.
Danny Denier: "The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult."
More of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #12.
Danny Denier: "Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrha were real cities that the Lord destroyed in the days of Lot and Abraham, Joey?
Jude seems to think so."
Sure, here's just one example of a recent report on it.
Danny Denier: "Child, don't you remember the story I posted earlier on Radiometric (RM) Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata and the KNM-ER fossil."
Somehow, despite my best efforts, I missed your post #206 where you mentioned this before.
Danny Denier: "The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years).
However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years.
In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory.
Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils."
Nonsense, that's not what happened.
This site reviews the entire controversy, confirming some of your details here, but then concluding:
"The conflict was resolved after geochemist Garniss Curtis and his student Thure E. Cerling conducted independent investigations of the age of the KBS Tuff using Argon-Argon and Potassium-Argon dating at the Berkeley Geochronology Laboratory.
Curtis and Cerling found that the material dated by the Cambridge team actually belonged to two separate tuffs, which they estimated at 1.8 and 1.6 Ma.[6]
This date was confirmed by Potassium-Argon dating conducted by Ian McDougall, and later Fission-Track dating conducted by Andy Gleadow.[6] [7][8]"
Multiple independent radiometric dating techniques were used to establish the dates of Leakey's fossil finds.
Danny Denier: "To make a long story short, after many re-tries, Leakey's bunch finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the expensive laboratory RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth.
You see, evolutionists rely on a circular argument for dating fossils and rocks: fossils are used to date the rocks, and rocks are used to date the fossils.
But, above all else, they rely on their faith that evolution is true, no matter what.
If the data doesn't fit, make it fit!"
Nice story, but that's not what happened.
Danny Denier: "Incredible!
The books on geology by the Moses-hating lawyer Charles Lyell contain the dumbest theories on strata deposition imaginable; but theologian Charlie Darwin believed it, as does much of his cult following.
The truth is, science doesn't see anything.
Ideologically-driven "scientists" interpret geological data according to their worldview, which is typically a worldview based on the theological doctrine of Lyell."
Lies, lies & more lies -- Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.
The real fact is that no physical evidence has ever been confirmed supporting any scientific theories other than evolution of fossils over geological time periods -- millions to billions of years.
Danny Denier: "Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child."
And still more of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.
Danny Denier: "There is no science to be found in that link, Joey; it is simply another in a long list of just-so stories passed off as science to the gullible.
For the rest of you, this photo shows several coal layers that formed within hydrologically-sorted sedimentary layers."
For the rest of you... Danny boy has never explained how coal formed during "the Flood".
Danny Denier: "You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock."
Right, coal was the swamp, other sedimentary rock formed in water too deep for swamps.
Danny Denier: "No, Child, it requires rapid plate movement with the momentum to push up enormous, sedimentary-rock covered mountain ranges.
Instead of inches per year, try meters per second."
And your physical evidence for such "rapid plate movement" is what?
Danny Denier: "No, Joey.
That is picture of a fossilized fern leaf on layer of coal.
If you examine the coal, it was probably formed from a large chunk of bark."
Probably not!
Probably formed as a mat of organic debris such as found in swamps today, some of which forms into peat and if compressed longer into lignite, then coal.
Danny Denier: "Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist who served as a professor of Geology and as President of the British Geological Association; yet, he rejected uniformitarianism, generally.
However, you can "see" him kiss the ring of Charles Lyell in the last sentence in order to keep the evolutionism fundamentalists off his back."
Ager was in no sense a young earth creationist.
Ager simply recognized correctly that in addition to "slow and steady" uniformitarianism, nature sometimes acts with catastrophic rapidity, i.e., volcanoes, earthquakes & meteor strikes.
Ager objected to you people hijacking his words for your own nefarious purposes.
Danny Denier: "Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.)"
Both, Danny baby boy.
Enough for now on Danny boy's post #433, more later... ![]()
>>Danny Denier: Danny Denier post #433: "Child." "Child." "Child." "Child."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Still more of Danny boy's reliance on Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12."
Immature Child.
*************
>>Danny Denier: "The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "More of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #12."
Sadly, Joey never progressed emotionally beyond grade school.
*************
>>Danny Denier: "Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrha were real cities that the Lord destroyed in the days of Lot and Abraham, Joey? Jude seems to think so."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Sure, here's just one example of a recent report on it."
Can we now assume, Joey, that you also believe in the Exodus and Abraham in Egypt? I am most curious to know how how far back you believe biblical history goes before it becomes a myth to you? Does your biblical history go back as far as the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg, the scattering of the nations at Babel, or perhaps even the flood? Adam?
What is amazing about Steve Collin's dig is, he simply followed biblical "markers" to find the dig site. You would think someone would have thought of that before; but archaeologists are mostly herd-followers, like scientists in other fields, especially evolutionism. So, once someone "determined" Sodom was located in the Dead Sea, all the resources ended up there.
The book Pastor Walton quoted is a good archaeology reference for the Bible student. The statement he read is actually the caption of this picture:
This is the caption:
"In addition to other high-heat indicators unearthed at Tall el-Hammam such as the thick layer of ash and debris, charred human remains, and destruction debris, this 4.5-inch-long piece of a melted Middle Bronze Age storage jar (in left of photo) was discovered. Its 'frothy' and 'glassy' melted appearance reveals that the sherd was briefly exposed to temperatures that far exceeded 2,000° F. (which is about the same heat as volcanic magma). Additional melted sherds have been discovered at various locations across the site, indicating that the city was destroyed in a sudden, intense, high-heat catastrophic event. A similar 'melting' phenomenon resulting from brief high-heat exposure is found in the two small greenish pieces of Trinitite (or 'desert glass,' pictured in right of photo) taken from ground zero at the United States atomic weapon test area in New Mexico. Astoundingly, analysis of some soil and sand samples from Tall el-Hammam shows they possess qualities similar to Trinitite." [Holden & Geisler, "The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture." Harvest House Publishers, 2013, Caption, p.217]
The following page contains a playlist of Dr. Collin's excavation at Sodom (top right,) as well as other fascinating archaeological digs, discoveries, and information:
Biblical Archaeology: Is the Bible History?
****************
>>Danny Denier: "Child, don't you remember the story I posted earlier on Radiometric (RM) Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata and the KNM-ER fossil. The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years). However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years. In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory. Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Nonsense, that's not what happened. This site reviews the entire controversy, confirming some of your details here, but then concluding: "The conflict was resolved after geochemist Garniss Curtis and his student Thure E. Cerling conducted independent investigations of the age of the KBS Tuff using Argon-Argon and Potassium-Argon dating at the Berkeley Geochronology Laboratory. Curtis and Cerling found that the material dated by the Cambridge team actually belonged to two separate tuffs, which they estimated at 1.8 and 1.6 Ma.[6] This date was confirmed by Potassium-Argon dating conducted by Ian McDougall, and later Fission-Track dating conducted by Andy Gleadow.[6] [7][8]" Multiple independent radiometric dating techniques were used to establish the dates of Leakey's fossil finds."
More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? They present the narrative for public consumption; but not the private narrative. You have to dig into the books and papers to find the truth.
Do you recall that Fitch & Miller (1970) initially determined the ages of Leakey's rocks to be over 200 million years? Three samples gave virtually identically results. Why would anyone reject those dates? On what grounds?
Those dates were rejected because they knew RM dating is unreliable, and that Leakey's fossils would be far too old, by a factor of 100. The "re-date" brought the age down to a more "acceptable" number, but there were still issues. Donald Johanson wrote of the debate that followed, in this manner:
"[Basil] Cooke's paper was widely read and made a considerable stir. However, it did not appear to shake Richard Leakey's confidence in the potassium-argon date given to the KBS tuff. He went to a conference in London in 1975 and found it to be the major topic of conversation. By this time a good many other scientists were beginning to be drawn into the debate because the date of skull 1470 was tied to the date of the KBS tuff. If that was changed, there would have to be a major revision in how science looked at human evolution. Homo would probably not go back to three million, as Richard Leakey claimed. Instead, there might be an australopithecine back there that could qualify as an ancestor—again counter to what Richard believed and what his father before him had believed."
. . .
"Then Cooke [the pig expert,] who had been silent up to then, pointed to his necktie and said, "You may think you know what MCP stands for, but you don't. It reallv stands for 'Mesochoerus correlates properly.'"
"A roar of laughter ended the argument, but it could not conceal the fact that Cooke's statement had been a devastating summary of the proceedings of the morning. Nearly everyone but the Lake Turkana team went away convinced that the KBS tuff and the skull 1470 dates would have to be corrected. John Harris, still a holdout and still believing the potassium-argon figures of Fitch and Miller, was unhappier even than he had been at Hadar when he had been hopefully combing over the Hipparion teeth. He resolved to make his own biostratigraphic analysis to prove the validity of the KBS date, and began looking around at the other members of the Turkana team for someone to help him. His eye lit on Tim White. Tim agreed to help. The two men made an exhaustive study of the Turkana pigs. When it was done, Harris was appalled. It indicated that Cooke was right and that the Lake Turkana dating was wrong."
[Johanson & Edey, "Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind." Simon & Schuster, 1981, pp.239-240]
As you can see, the date had to be corrected, so, it was back to the drawing board, that is, the RM Dating lab. Read carefully:
"Richard Leakey did not stand quietly by while all the pot shots were being taken at 1470 and the KBS tuff. He was disturbed enough by the rising tide of mammal-fossil evidence to ask Fitch and Miller to do another potassium-argon run. They did, and this time came up with a date of 2.4 million years. To the pig-fossil men this was a step in the right direction, but far too small a one; they felt that another dater should be tried. They were pleased when Thure Cerling, a University of California graduate student, turned up at the Berkeley campus with some samples of the KBS tuff that he had brought back with him from Lake Turkana. He gave the samples to Garniss Curtis, the acknowledged dean of potassium-argon dating and a pioneer in its application to Plio-Pleistocene fossils.
"Curtis ran tests on Cerling's samples, one of which returned a date of 1.8 million, the other a date of 1.6 million. Those were almost exactly what the pig-fossil men would have predicted, and they were delighted with them. These results gave pause to Leakey. In a thorough review of the Lake Turkana hominids that he wrote for Scientific American in 1978, he noted the discrepancy between the Fitch-Miller findings and those of Curtis, but did not indicate which he favored. For me, the Curtis dates clinched it. There was now no way that 1470 could be more than two million years old."
[Ibid. pp.242-243]
Summary: the first samples of the "redate" tested to 2.4 million years; but that did not match the (imaginary) date assigned to the pig fossils: far from it. So, more samples were tested, which gave a date of 1.6 to 1.8 million years, matching the expected age of the pig fossils. Therefore, the pig fossils determined the date, and not the RM labs.
BTW, the initial date of over 200 million years was apparently replicated in subsequent RM datings, as mentioned in your Wikipedia article:
"The date was called into question because efforts to replicate the findings produced KBS Tuff ages ranging from less than 1 to over 220 Ma."
The bottom line is, Radiometric Dating is a joke.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "To make a long story short, after many re-tries, Leakey's bunch finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the expensive laboratory RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth. You see, evolutionists rely on a circular argument for dating fossils and rocks: fossils are used to date the rocks, and rocks are used to date the fossils. But, above all else, they rely on their faith that evolution is true, no matter what. If the data doesn't fit, make it fit!"
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Nice story, but that's not what happened."
That is exactly what happened. Your attempt at misdirection reminded me of this statement by Marvin Lubenow:
"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins." [Marvin L. Lubenow, "The Pigs took it all." Creation Ministries International, 1995]
Child.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "Incredible! The books on geology by the Moses-hating lawyer Charles Lyell contain the dumbest theories on strata deposition imaginable; but theologian Charlie Darwin believed it, as does much of his cult following. The truth is, science doesn't see anything. Ideologically-driven "scientists" interpret geological data according to their worldview, which is typically a worldview based on the theological doctrine of Lyell."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Lies, lies & more lies -- Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7. The real fact is that no physical evidence has ever been confirmed supporting any scientific theories other than evolution of fossils over geological time periods -- millions to billions of years."
That is pure baloney, Child. The geological column and the fossil record are evidences of a global flood, and nothing but a global flood. The real fact is, nothing supports evolution and the old earth myth, except deceptive rhetoric.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "And still more of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7."
Foolish Child.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "There is no science to be found in that link, Joey; it is simply another in a long list of just-so stories passed off as science to the gullible. For the rest of you, this photo shows several coal layers that formed within hydrologically-sorted sedimentary layers."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "For the rest of you... Danny boy has never explained how coal formed during "the Flood"."
It certainly did not form in swamps, like evolutionists have imagined.
The simplest explanation is hydrologic sorting of tree bark (and everything else) during the months it spent under regular tidal influence. In the absence of land barriers, the water would form an enormous bulge under the moon at all times. The spinning earth would gradually move the bulge westward, relatively speaking. Absent land barriers, the regular rise and fall of the water would hydrodynamically sort all sedimentary rock and organic materials.
That would also explain the wide-spread presence of polystrate trees projecting upward through multiple coal seams. The layers had to have formed rapidly, or the tree would rot, rather than fossilize. All told, the observable evidence is overwhelming that a single, global flood created the sedimentary rock and coal layers, as well as the fossil record.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Right, coal was the swamp, other sedimentary rock formed in water too deep for swamps."
There is no evidence of a swamp in the coal layers, Joey. There are no branches, no roots, no nothing that would point to a swamp. Contrary evidence include the flatness of the coal seams (top and bottom,) thin benches (sometimes mere inches thick) between coal seams, and polystrates.
The truth is, the "swamp theory" is another just-so story that became folklore.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "No, Child, it requires rapid plate movement with the momentum to push up enormous, sedimentary-rock covered mountain ranges. Instead of inches per year, try meters per second."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "And your physical evidence for such "rapid plate movement" is what?"
Besides the science of physics? Real science points to rapid formation of the mountain ranges by way of either a powerful collision of two plates, or the buckling of a massive plate as it came to a "screeching" halt.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. That is picture of a fossilized fern leaf on layer of coal. If you examine the coal, it was probably formed from a large chunk of bark."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Probably not! Probably formed as a mat of organic debris such as found in swamps today, some of which forms into peat and if compressed longer into lignite, then coal."
Peat is not coal, Joey; and there is no evidence that peat ever turned into coal. The estimated seven-times compression of peat necessary to create coal would require enormous, rediculously-thick peat bogs to create the thick coal beds. However, evolutionists have imagined the perfect just-so story to explain away the problem:
"Since peat is expected to compact appreciably during burial, there appears to be no modern analogue for the processes which formed thick coal beds, and this seems to challenge the Law of Uniformitarianism. However, the conundrum of coal bed thickness can be resolved by identification of discontinuities in coal beds. Coal beds are generally treated as single entities, created by a continuous process of peat deposition. It is more likely, however, that most thick coal beds are composed of multiple paleo-peat bodies, stacked one upon another, rather than a single paleo-peat body." [Shearer et al, "The Conundrum of Coal Bed Thickness: A Theory for Stacked Mire Sequences." Journal of Geology, Vol.102, Iss.5; September, 1994, p.611]
That is a really nice story. Too bad it is not science.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist who served as a professor of Geology and as President of the British Geological Association; yet, he rejected uniformitarianism, generally. However, you can "see" him kiss the ring of Charles Lyell in the last sentence in order to keep the evolutionism fundamentalists off his back."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager was in no sense a young earth creationist."
Of course not. He was a devout evolutionist, as I explained.
****************
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager simply recognized correctly that in addition to "slow and steady" uniformitarianism, nature sometimes acts with catastrophic rapidity, i.e., volcanoes, earthquakes & meteor strikes."
Or, by way of a massive global flood, for which there are boatloads of evidence."
****************
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager objected to you people hijacking his words for your own nefarious purposes.
Of course Ager objected, as did Gould and every other atheist whose research -- research that questioned evolutionism -- was revealed to the public. There is nothing nefarious about the truth, Child; but the widespread fraud and cover-ups by evolutionists is certainly nefarious.
****************
>>Danny Denier: "Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.)"
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Both, Danny baby boy."
There is no evidence of gradualism, Child.
Mr Kalamata