>>Whiny Joey wrote: "More of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.
Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "You are promoting Wikipedia and other non-science websites, Joey. Do you not know the difference between science and story-telling?"
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Wikipedia is a perfectly legitimate source for mere lists of dozens of different techniques in dating ancient materials. So you are here merely using Denier Rules #1, #6, #9 & #12.
The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult.
*****************
>>Danny Denier On Jude 1:22: "What else does it say? Does it say this? -- Jude 1:23 KJV"
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "I believe in mercy.
So, you don't believe the rest of what he said? Do you think the Bible is a menu? How about this verse:
"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." -- Jude 1:5-8 KJV
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.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "There are no consistent dating methods for ancient materials, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Denier Rules #1, #6 & #9.
Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "LOL! That is really funny, Joey. I seriously thought you were trying to make a valid point."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Denier Rules #7 & #11.
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.
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!
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "But in the world of science, a global flood is the only explanation for the thick, sorted, uncontaminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers found world wide. We are talking of an average of more than a mile of sedimentary rock layers covering the earth, Joey. Sedimentary rock layers are deposited by water."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Sorry, but that's your theology, not natural science. Science sees deposits laid down over billions of years mostly in swamps, rivers, lakes & oceans.
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.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Those dating techniques for ancient materials which Danny boy claims don't exist, do and show no single global flood.
Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. That is just another made-up story. There is no evidence of any connection of coal layers to swamps. Peat is formed in bogs, but not coal."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Rubbish, "Coal Formation starts with accumulation of organic matter (bits of dead plants) in a low oxygen setting such as a peat bog. . . . (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.) That's what science says."
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.
You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock.
*****************
>>Danny boy has yet to tell us how he fantasizes coal formed. Danny Denier: "Can you not read, Joey? I said coal seams are typically flat? Of course they would not be flat in areas of geological upheaval. "
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh? "Geological upheaval"? The sorts of continental movements which have been measured moving at the same rate as our fingernails grow, which would take millions of years to thrust up mountain ranges -- oh, that "geological upheaval".
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.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "That should tell you that plants and leaves in coal layers do not necessarily become coal."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh? "That photo shows a piece of coal with the impression of a plant in it. It's all coal, even the impression.
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.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "The late Derek Ager was a world-famous evolutionary geologist, Joey. I can safely say that nothing Derek Ager wrote in any of his papers and books can be seriously classified as "nonsense"."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh Danny boy, anti-Creationist geologist Derek Ager (1923-1993) recognized the importance of catastrophes in geological terms.
I mentioned that earlier in #300, Joey, where I wrote,
"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."
LOL!
*****************
>>Whiny Joey quotes from a hit-piece against creationists from the amateurish, "Non-Answers In Genesis" site, also called "NAGs":
"In recent years many geologists, especially Derek Ager, have recognized the importance of ancient NATURAL catastrophes in forming the geologic record." [NAGs]
Now I am confused, Joey. Did you not write this statement earlier in this very post?
"Sorry, but that's [Kalamata's] theology, not natural science. Science sees deposits laid down over billions of years mostly in swamps, rivers, lakes & oceans."[Joey]
Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.) Continuing:
"modern "uniformitarianists" (also called actualists) realize that the geologic record is a product of both LOCALIZED NATURAL catastrophes (including: ancient earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorite impacts and landslides) and slow and gradual processes (such as solar evaporation to form salt deposits, blueschist metamorphism and most dolomitization)." [NAGs]
I wonder how the NAGS might explain the 5 or so perfectly-sorted, micritic-carbonate-capped megasequences discovered by the geologist Sloss? I am particularly curious how they might try to explain away the micritic carbonate caps. Continuing:
"Although there is absolutely no evidence that any of these non-contemporaneous, localized and natural catastrophes had anything to do with a Biblical worldwide flood," [NAGs]
Only a mind-numbed ideologue would make a foolish statement like that. Continuing:
"young-Earth creationists (YECs) are fond of hijacking Ager's neocatastrophism and attempting to exploit it to support their flood myth. . . Like many YECs, Walker invokes Ager (1993) to prop up his medieval views." [NAGs]
A rule of thumb in the evolutionism cult smear game is:
1) If creationists quote secular scientists, the creationists are guilty of hijacking the secular scientists' work.
2) If creationists quote other creationists, they are guilty of avoiding peer-reviewed sources.
Now you know how the "you can't win" smear game is played by the devout, fundamentalist evolutionist. Continuing:
"However, Ager (1995) did not appreciate YECs distorting his ideas to support "Noah's Flood." Specifically, Ager (1995, p. xi) vents his frustrations with both YECs and the antiquated Lyell Uniformitarian extremists"
LOL! According to Dr. Terry Mortenson, creation scientists don't much care whether Ager appreciates those who reference his work, or not. Besides, Ager is dead, now, and he knows the truth. Continuing, but this time with Ager:
"I should, perhaps, say something about the title of this book. Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.
"On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessity to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."
[Derek V. Ager, "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History." Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 42019 9, 1993, Preface, p.xi]
We love you anyway, Derek. After all, you did help shatter the uniformitarian myth.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: "Your post #300 quote of Ager ends with: "This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous."
>>Whiny Joey said: "I simply agree with Ager that his previous calculations were "ridiculous".
Ager never said his previous calculations were ridiculous. In his calculations regarding polystrate trees, he merely explained that applying uniformitarian principles to those polystrate coal seam trees is ridiculous. I am not sure if he mentioned that polystrates have been found pointing upward through multiple coal seams, which is evidence of rapid coal seam formation over perhaps a year, rather than hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.
>>Whiny Joey said: "I have no problem at all with his ideas about catastrophism or his opposition to Young Earth Creationists hijacking his words for their own nefarious purposes."
We have not hijacked Ager's work, Child. Creation scientists were catastrophists long before Ager showed up. In fact, creationists do not believe he took his work far enough, either from lack of understanding of the geological column, or due to peer pressure from other members of the evolutionism establishment, or due to sheer hatred for creationists. Whatever the case, we are happy he took that first step toward geological sanity.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: "Ager himself recognized his calculations were "ridiculous", my word was "nonsense".
No, Joey, you misunderstood him, or you are not making yourself clear.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: "Those petrified trees may demonstrate what he was talking about."
Those trees reveal only that, at one time, they were buried in highly-mineralized mud, of some sort.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "I am not yet blind, Joey. Erosion is easy to spot."
>>Whiny Joey said: "Then open your good eyes and reject weak reed arguments. You can't see erosion when a geological layer is eroded away. I've twice already posted this map of very small regions with Silurian deposits across the western hemisphere. Where such deposits are absent there's no way to say for certain if A) they were never there or B) they were there but eroded away.
You are avoiding my point, Joey, which is the widespread presence of uneroded, unbioturbated strata in the geological column. The photo posted above of the alternate mud-coal layering demonstrates the absence of erosion.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "That is not the point, Joey. The point is, the bottom layer remained in position for supposedly 100 million years, with virtually no observable erosion during that time, until the next layer was deposited on top of it. That is a pretty neat trick, if the 100 million year time frame is true. Supernatural, even."
>>Whiny Joey said: "So... first, are you hoping to tell us the absence of Ordovician or Silurian evidence is evidence of Noah's flood?
No, Joey. The presence of uneroded, unbioturbated, layering is evidence enough of a global flood. The lack of erosion of the layers "sandwiching" a missing layer is additional evidence that cannot be quibbled or obfuscated away.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: Second, in a sense the Universe and everything in it is supernatural, but science can only research natural explanations for natural processes. In this particular case you don't know what layers eroded away so there's no way to say if Ordovician & Silurian layers were ever even there.
LOL! It this guy for real? Nobody cares about the missing layer, Joey. The lack of erosion in the layers adjacent to the missing layer is what should make any old-earth geologist worth his salt reconsider his intrepretations.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Faith is the evidence of things not seen, Joey. It is okay to have a religion, as long as you don't pretend it is science and try to ram it down children's throats."
>>Whiny Joey said: Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you...
Child.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Are you saying the lack of evidence for erosion is evidence for erosion? That is pretty crazy, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey said: "No, but in this case it is your crazy claim. ou tell us because we don't see Devonian & Silurian deposits in the Grand Canyon, that is evidence of Noah's flood!
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Joey, or are you logically-challenged? This was your statement that I responded to:
"first, you can't see what's been eroded away." [Joey]
If I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to be funny, Joey.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "How did we get only shale for 30 million years without any sand or limestone mixed in? How do we get limestone for 20 million years with no sand and shale? Do you see my point? It would be virtually impossible for the geological column to form slowly, as you prescribe."
>>Whiny Joey said: "No, because your point is pure nonsense. Deposits get laid down underwater by whatever material happens to erode to make them.
LOL! This is like talking to a wall.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Bioturbation is the mixing of surface layering by boring animals, down to as deep as perhaps 20-25 feet. If there is no significant bioturbation found in the layer, it was deposited rapidly, and then immediately covered by subsequent layering to prevent boring animals from mixing the lamination."
>>Whiny Joey said: "Well... that's a nice fantasy, er, "hypothesis.
That is an observable, scientific fact, Joey. Practically everywhere you walk on earth, even in many desert areas, there is evidence of bioturbation. There is also evidence of the beginning of bioturbation in many of the sedimentary rock layers, which suddenly stopped, leaving only a few tunnels and fossilized borers. That reveals there was potential for bioturbation, but some process stopped it, such as a new layer of sediment.
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: "So you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies where your idea was researched, tested & confirmed or falsified?"
This is a good paper on bioturbation by Gingras et al:
https://www.slb.com/-/media/files/oilfield-review/4-bioturbation-english
These parts from Gingras et al. explains bioturbation. They also mention sequence stratigraphy:
"Highly to completely burrowed sediments are evidence of both a significant infaunal biomass and conditions of slow sediment accumulation. Moderate to sparse bioturbation, characterized by evenly distributed trace fossils, indicates a lower infaunal biomass and higher sedimentation rate. The size and diversity of ichnofossils in burrowed media reflect the chemical aspects of the depositional waters. For example, in marine deposits, large trace fossils are indicative of high dissolved oxygen content and stable ocean salinity. A pre-ponderance of small trace fossils suggests salinity- or oxygen-stressed environments. High diversity of fossil types is related to oxygen content and salinity and also indicates abundant nutrients... Through sequence stratigraphy, geologists identify sequences, or sedimentary deposits that are bounded by unconformities, which are surfaces characterized by erosion, lack of deposition or abrupt changes in depositional environment. Identifying the key bounding surfaces and correlating them with data from wells and seismic surveys form the basis of the sequence stratigraphic approach. In creating an integrated interpretation, geologists use trace fossils along with sedimentological analysis, core measurements and well logs to characterize sediments within each sequence and identify the depositional surfaces and discontinuities that separate sedimentary sequences… Identifying erosional discontinuities is important because they form the bounding surfaces of sedimentary sequences." [Gingras et al, "Bioturbation: Reworking Sediments for Better or Worse." Oilfield Review, Winter 2014/2015, p.51]
Generally speaking, flat, laminate layers within a sequence have little biotubation. The following article from the journal of Creation cites Gringras et al.:
"If we are consistent in applying the uniformitarian philosophy to the rock record then we should expect a high level of bioturbation for almost all of the sediments deposited in a former marine setting, especially if that environment existed with little to no change for thousands to millions of years. Counter to that conceptualization, some diluvialists have predicted that we should expect little sediment bioturbation due to the high-energy conditions associated with the Genesis Flood... Recent laboratory experiments document that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur over a short period of time depending on the type and population density of trace makers. For uniformitarians, the lack of any stirred sediment requires that they appeal to punctuated catastrophic events. Such events do not eliminate their reliance on deep time assumptions—the vertical rock record should exhibit layers of intense bioturbation interrupted by nonbioturbated sedimentary events followed by intense bioturbation. However, this is not typically found in the actual rock record." [Carl R. Froede Jr., "Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record." Creation Ministries International, 23(3); December, 2009, p.4]
Another article, which cites the above article by Froede, is from the Journal of Creation:
"The issue of bioturbation highlights another uniformitarian dilemma—why the bulk of all sedimentary rocks are not completely bioturbated, since the process is observed to occur rapidly. This seems contrary to the principle of actualism [the compromise between gradualism and catastrophism.] The extent of bioturbation in sedimentary rocks can be explained by the Flood. Fluctuations in the rate of sedimentation during the Flood may explain why some rocks have been reworked and others have not." [Michael J. Oard, "Fossil range extensions continue." Journal of Creation, 27(3), 2013, p.81]
The Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "Not one of those local floods deposited thousands of feet of sorted sedimentary rock layers over the entire world."
>>Whiny Joey said: "You know, Danny boy, while you were inventing this geological fantasy, did you ever stop to wonder how sometimes those sedimentary rocks are found underneath igneous or metamorphic layers?
No. Perhaps you will enlighten us.
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "If mankind lived on the high ground, away from violent animals, their fossils would be found only in the upper most levels, or buried in the world-wide continental shelf where they were swept away to by rapidly receding flood waters."
>>Whiny Joey said: "And you first learned this fantasy of "high ground" living where, exactly?
It is no fantasy, Joey. It is from mother nature that I learned men tended to be a little smarter than animals, though lately I am not so sure.
But, in full disclosure, several intertestamental texts indicate there were not a lot of men left on the earth by the time the Ark lifted off. The earth was filled with violence, so God in judgment destroyed the earth, along with all men and land creatures that remained.
"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." -- Gen 6:13 KJV
*****************
>>Danny Denier: "It is written in Genesis 9 that Noah's family repopulated the earth after the flood, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey said: "DNA and fossil evidence suggest something quite different, Danny boy."
The fossil record doesn't show us anything, Joey, except that there are a lot of buried dead things. The DNA evidence is still pending, but every day it points more and more to the accuracy of the biblical narrative. Have you ever read this?
"In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans...Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?... another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.3-4]
That is great support for the biblical narrative, and for Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves," which gives the cut-off point for evolution at the family level, or the biblical "kind." There is more:
"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time. But is that true?" The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution. For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP. The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP. That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age? Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean? " [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.1-2]
Regarding the last sentence, I wonder what the catastrophic event could have been that nearly "wiped the slate clean"? LOL!
*****************
>>Whiny Joey said: "Some people argue that some of these dates are off, they say for example the Americas were populated well before 12,500 years ago. But no physical or DNA evidence suggests an entirely different "theory" of world population."
Child.
Mr. Kalamata
Danny Denier: "Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrha were real cities that the Lord destroyed in the days of Lot and Abraham, Joey? 
Nonsense, that's not what happened.
Danny Denier: "No, Joey. 
Ager was in no sense a young earth creationist.
Danny Whiny Denier: "I am not sure if he mentioned that polystrates have been found pointing upward through multiple coal seams, which is evidence of rapid coal seam formation over perhaps a year, rather than hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years."
So, again, you claim the absence of evidence is evidence of... what?
And yet more: 