6000 year old earth

originally posted by: peter vlar
The really difficult part is attempting to discern the trolls from the true believers. There is such a fine line in far too many posters of late.

I agree and with some it's difficult but with those that are clearly being dishonest, well, we can all agree they are just trolling.

originally posted by: AldarKose
a reply to: peter vlar

i got kicked out, cultural differences.. But any new and interesting findings?

try these threads... www.abovetopsecret.com...

especially this one... www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: peter vlar

So i was right

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress

Well considering Ar40 is the most popular tests, only comes from decay, and atmospheric Ar40 is miniscule and accounted for when the calculations are made makes your point irrelevant. You are regurgitating the same creationist claims made in the 70s and 80s, which were countered and shown to be false and have not advanced in the 30+ years since.

Why is it that you smart people with knowledge that the earth has been here millions or billions of years resort to using such a peremptory tone when you could just provide evidence instead?

Argon is not only obtained from decay, no element is only obtained from decay, and the fact you mention that there is Argon in the atmosphere shows this, Argon is roughly % in volume of the atmosphere, making the amounts far from minuscule.

You say "when the calculations are made makes [my] point irrelevant."

What calculations?

The 40-Ar isotope is only derived from the decay of the unstable Potassium 40 isotope. That is the only way it forms. Radioactive decay, period. It's common knowledge. The reason there is Argon in the atmosphere is because until rocks cool the daughter material, in this case free 40-Ar, a gas, is allowed to escape, typically during volcanic eruptions and deep sea vents. Once the rock cools and crystalizes the daughter material is trapped in the crystaline matrix of the rocks. Free 40-Ar will not re-enter the rock externally. Any potential contamination is from the equipment being on earth in the atmosphere. We know how much 40-Ar is in the atmospere, therefore we can account for any potential contamination in our date ranges. I'm not going to go through an list a bunch of freshman level geology text books, nor am I going to go through an start siting every one of hundreds of studies for the last century that proves this point.

Just to add, if rocks go through metamorphosis and reheat up, it frees up the bonds allowing the daughter material, 40-Ar gas to escape and resets the geologic clock, allowing us to only date to the time of metamorphosis.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sure thing: en.wikipedia.org...

I learned he studied biochemistry at Berkeley, so dude knows what calcite is probably.

Asking a biochemist to study and provide expert analysis on geologic formations is akin to asking a chiropractor to perform neural surgery. Also, love the fact you argue for the guy and you're not sure he even knows what you are arguing he is an expert on...

originally posted by: wisvol
Chemistry is chemistry, calcite stalactites are calcite stalactites, and joyful repetition of enslaving unproven concepts is science

I'll come check back on yous in 1985

When in doubt, just keep the lies coming, am I right?

Gish is a geological professional, right? He earned his degree in that field, right? Stalactites form exactly the same even with different chemical composition, right? A car is a car, hence there is no different in their capabilities or speed right?

You, sir, are a liar and a fraud and your arguments are barely even readable. Please leave this discussion to the people that actually can converse like adults instead of making arguments that my 8 year old nephew would laugh at.

a reply to: peter vlar

They made a report/research, "something" that neanderthals survived in Scandinavia a lot longer than they realize..

Im trying to find it cause i was gonna post and shot it to you and get your comment on it..

a reply to: Barcs

I am willing to let him loose with some chemicals in a Cat 4 lab and test "chemistry is chemistry," perhaps see if potassium iodide from elemental starters is the same as lithium chloride

Gish is a geological professional, right? He earned his degree in that field, right? Stalactites form exactly the same even with different chemical composition, right?

...In caves that where created(by an unknown magical/geological process) during a magical flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

a reply to: anton74

Gish is a geological professional and a scientist, because he earned a science degree from Berkeley and was financially compensated for his views on geological questions, yes.
So is Gentry, who published in your revered journal called "science" in the nineties with other professionals of his field explaining how radioactivity and time are not linearly correlated at all, and he was careful enough not to mention how #ing retarded it is to believe so, just so you can read all about it:

Gentry, Robert V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, W.H. Christie, 1982, "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,"Science, Vol. 216, p. 296-298.

Stalactites made of calcite form in the same way whether on one location or another, thanks for the straw man.

Caves may have been formed at some point before or after oceanic displacement.
Caves are not proof of billions or millions of years.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: anton74

Gish is a geological professional and a scientist, because he earned a science degree from Berkeley and was financially compensated for his views on geological questions, yes.

No. Giving your views on something does not make you a professional. Earning a degree also doesn't make you a scientist unless you actually do scientific research. You are using appeal to authority fallacy when this guy isn't an authority on anything. He's a christian shill apologist that got paid to promote a worldview. Nothing more, nothing less. The research paper you quoted does nothing to go against radiometric dating.

a reply to: wisvol

Ahh Duane P. Gish, a creationist. who holds a PhD in BIOCHEMISTRY not in GEOLOGY. Do you understand the difference between those sciences. I'm a Chemist and a Biochemist that means I am qualified to speak to chemistry, biochemistry and genetics (specifically bioinformatics, genomics etc). I am not qualified to be an expert in Physics, Geology (beyond geochemistry), or ecology.

Here are some of his publications:
Bonnie Snellenberger; Gish, Duane T.; D Dish; Earl Snellenberger (1990). The Amazing Story of Creation: From Science and the Bible. Green forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-120-9.
Hillestad, George M.; Morris, Henry; Gish, Duane T. (1974). Creation: acts, facts, impacts. San Diego, Calif: ICR Pub. Co. ISBN 0-89051-020-2.
D. Gish (1993). Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics. El Cajon, Calif: Institute for Creation Research. ISBN 0-932766-28-5.
Gish, Duane T. (1988). Creationist Research 1964-1988. Creation Research Society. ISBN 0-940384-06-X.
Gish, Duane T. (1977). Dinosaurs: Those Terrible Lizards. Green forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-039-3.
Gloria Clanin; Gish, Duane T.; Earl Snellenberger; Bonita Snellenberger (1992). Dinosaurs by Design. Green forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-165-9.
Gish, Duane T. (1972). Evidence against evolution. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN 0-8423-0790-7.
Gish, Duane T.; (1974). Have You Been... Brainwashed?. Seattle, WA: Life Messengers. p. 48.
Gish, Duane T. (1986) [1979]. Evolution, the fossils say no!. San Diego, Calif: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-057-1.
Gish, Duane T. (1985). Evolution: the challenge of the fossil record. San Diego, Calif: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-112-8.
Gish, Duane T. (1981). Manipulating life, where does it stop?: Genetic engineering. Green forest, AR: Master Books. ISBN 0-89051-071-7.
Gish, Duane T. Speculations and Experiments on the Origins of Life. New Leaf Pr. ISBN 0-89051-010-5.
Gish, Duane T. (1995). Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools. El Cajon, Calif: Institute for Creation Research. ISBN 0-932766-36-6.
Rohrer, Donald H.; Gish, Duane T. (1978). Up with creation!: ICR acts/facts/impacts, 1976-1977. San Diego, Calif: Creation-Life Publishers. ISBN 0-89051-048-2.
Gish, Duane T. (1995). Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!. Master Books. p. 277. ISBN 0-89051-112-8.
See also[edit]

In debates with scientists he has used Ad Hominem arguments (trying to prove someone was an atheist, and thus amoral). He has been accused of fabricating data (www.lhup.edu...).

All this aside, he is no more a geological professional, than I am an interpretive dancer. He can speak to biochemistry, but apopears to have not taken that route for anti-evolution debates. Could this be that there is no evidence he can use?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: anton74

Gish is a geological professional and a scientist, because he earned a science degree from Berkeley and was financially compensated for his views on geological questions, yes.
So is Gentry, who published in your revered journal called "science" in the nineties with other professionals of his field explaining how radioactivity and time are not linearly correlated at all, and he was careful enough not to mention how #ing retarded it is to believe so, just so you can read all about it:

Gentry, Robert V., T.J. Sworski, H.S. McKown, D.H. Smith, R.E. Eby, W.H. Christie, 1982, "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment,"Science, Vol. 216, p. 296-298.

Stalactites made of calcite form in the same way whether on one location or another, thanks for the straw man.

Caves may have been formed at some point before or after oceanic displacement.
Caves are not proof of billions or millions of years.

Just because you publish a paper doesn't mean your work holds up to further scrutiny. Gentry has repeatedly ignored known fundamental principals in his claims on geology to the point answers in genesis distances themselves from his work.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And it is this 60 MPH for 4 Hours to give us the 240 Miles traveled that is the folly of C-14 Dating.

Granted, this measured tool could apply to many Man made items of some period of time. That is quite clear.

The difficulty I have is this is based upon knowns, when evidence is being found that suggests our environment has not always been as it is today. Therefore the Dating come into question when applied to items that from this early earth environment.

Just noting this to point out, what we may currently think is viable, may actually be skewing dating results due to this plausble unknown.

Ciao

Shane

originally posted by: Shane
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The difficulty I have is this is based upon knowns, when evidence is being found that suggests our environment has not always been as it
Shane

Evidence... Like what? Care to elaborate on said evidence?

He's a christian shill apologist that got paid to promote a worldview. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ahh Duane P. Gish, a creationist. who holds a PhD in BIOCHEMISTRY not in GEOLOGY.

All right folks so

Dawkins is a Cthulhu madman paid to yell his views in contempt and not get punched as per the rules of debate. His proposed cosmology is both lame and dangerous.

Dr Gish was invoked after it was alleged that I led about the nature of calcite when it was said on this thread that calcite proved Dawkins' conclusion that the world needs to be so very old because we cannot observe drosophilia become spiders or finches become ostriches. So surely instead of this being not observable because it doesn't happen (as bigfoot), uncle fish is unobservable simply because rocks are millions of years old.

No. Any stonemason knows you can make marble like you can make concrete, in a day.

Calcite grows on subway walls from the condensation.

You can observe it contradicts the unobserved conclusion of the poster who suggested caves prove rocks are older then the bible.

It's your prerogative to believe such things as you see fit

Yet your tone needs correction both

a reply to: Cypress

Gentry has repeatedly ignored known fundamental principals in his claims on geology to the point answers in genesis distances themselves from his work.

Those "fundamental principles" or fundamentalisms you speak of are Dawkins followers, and good for them.
Dr Gentry is repeatedly invited in congresses of professional Geologists as a VIP speaker so he must be doing something right.

And he published in "Science magazine" which is the atheist book of reference of science for some dark reason.

originally posted by: wisvol

He's a christian shill apologist that got paid to promote a worldview. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ahh Duane P. Gish, a creationist. who holds a PhD in BIOCHEMISTRY not in GEOLOGY.

All right folks so

Dawkins is a Cthulhu madman paid to yell his views in contempt and not get punched as per the rules of debate. His proposed cosmology is both lame and dangerous.

Dr Gish was invoked after it was alleged that I led about the nature of calcite when it was said on this thread that calcite proved Dawkins' conclusion that the world needs to be so very old because we cannot observe drosophilia become spiders or finches become ostriches. So surely instead of this being not observable because it doesn't happen (as bigfoot), uncle fish is unobservable simply because rocks are millions of years old.

No. Any stonemason knows you can make marble like you can make concrete, in a day.

Calcite grows on subway walls from the condensation.

You can observe it contradicts the unobserved conclusion of the poster who suggested caves prove rocks are older then the bible.

It's your prerogative to believe such things as you see fit

Yet your tone needs correction both

Marble is metamorphic limestone. Any stone mason that claims they make marble is full of crap. Clearly you do not have a grasp of the most basic understanding of geology.

a reply to: Cypress

Marble is metamorphic limestone. Any stone mason that claims they make marble is full of crap. Clearly you do not have a grasp of the most basic understanding of geology.

www.houzz.co.uk...

oh really

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Cypress

Gentry has repeatedly ignored known fundamental principals in his claims on geology to the point answers in genesis distances themselves from his work.

Those "fundamental principles" or fundamentalisms you speak of are Dawkins followers, and good for them.
Dr Gentry is repeatedly invited in congresses of professional Geologists as a VIP speaker so he must be doing something right.

And he published in "Science magazine" which is the atheist book of reference of science for some dark reason.

Well considering congress panders to the stupidity of its electorate and the christian coalition has been in full force since 1980, that point means absolutely nothing. His claims of pulonium halos are bunk and he either was purposely dishonest or a fool with his pulonium halos claim. The Halos are not consistant throughout the rocks and he used metamorphic rocks as part of his samples. His so called research is garbage that would cause a freshman college student to fail an entry level geology course.