Why Won't They Carbon Date This?

by Perry 246 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • thetrueone

    Thanks Leolaia for the more technical information to further substantiate what I was previously trying to explain.

    This should just about do it for Perry, until his next " Scientists have it all wrong and young earth Creationists/Religionists have it all right diatribe.

  • ziddina

    Mmmmm, Leolaia, a lot of those place-names for the sedimentary layers in your post #16220 are making me homesick!!

    "White River" - I was born near White River, South Dakota... "Belle Fouche" - have gone thru that town many, many times when my parents took us kids to see the grandparents... Their ranch was near New Underwood, South Dakota - which tells you what kind of terrain and rock-types I 'cut my teeth' on as a fledgling rockhound at the tender age of 5 - 6...

    "Spearfish", South Dakota - sort of on the edge between the sedimentary rocks of the prairies and the Black Hills uplift.... And then there's "Deadwood", representing the core of the Black Hills...

    Some of the other sedimentary rocks appear to be from Texas... I recognize some of those place-names, too - "Tyler", "Red River", "Three Forks"...

    For Perry - those are the 'type' names of various layers in the sedimentary sequence - and the 'type' names tend to change as one moves from one region to another. For example, a layer named "Navajo" sandstone [in Utah] might be represented by the "Piper" layer in Texas, and a layer of comparable age from the same period of geological time, but located in England or France, for example, might be called something totally different.

    But don't worry.... Geologists cross-reference the 'place-names' from region to region... ["Place-names" - Sorry I don't have time to look up actual geological term as hubby is pushing me out the door to go grocery shopping ]

  • bohm

    oh no you got it all wrong with them "sciency" graphs and figures. Perry has closely researched the avaliable geological litterature and destilled it into one diagram which explain it all:

    look, it have "circular" in the title and a nice circle in the middle made by the top-notch creationist scientific software otherwise known as powerpoint. and arrows, too, so Perry can understand which way to move around without getting to confused along the way. It wouldnt be very good to go from fossils to rocks and then not know which way to go.

    And for those who claim those sciency creationist do not rely on emperical evidence and experiments, but instead simply have trivial slogans they can spout out any moment a living thought threating their current state of ignorant bliss: A crack team of creationist scientists one time spend a full week carefully trailing the circle 129 times. But oh no, suddenly darwinist are not impressed by experiments!

  • MrFreeze

    How can you argue with someone who pulls "facts" out of their ass? It is a waste of time. You can't beat someone who constantly changes the rules to fit his circumstances. God can do anything so there is your answer. God did it. You cannot beat someone who uses that logic. Sometimes the only way to win, is to not play.

  • Perry

    Geo time.JPG

    This is a typical chart we see in textbooks. I have not been able to find one place where all ten or so layers yeild corresponding fossils indexing the strata. This is what I asked for - verifiable data to match the textbook. Where are the index fossils dating each of the strata in the example Leolia presents from Bonaparte Basin? If such cannot be produced, then skepticism of the "millions" geologic column is well founded.

    Here is the conclusion of one reseacher:

    There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.

    Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded. Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth. It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.

    Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective. It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions. Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.

    Finally, the geological column is a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading. A number of standard explanations are used to account for missing geological periods, including erosion and non-deposition. Clear field evidence, such as unconformities, is not necessarily needed before these explanations are invoked. Similarly a range of standard explanations is used to account for the fossils when their order is beyond what the column would predict. These include reworking, stratigraphic leaking, and long-range fossils. Even if all ten periods of the column had never been assigned to one local stratigraphic section anywhere on the earth, the concept of the geological column would still be accepted as fact by conventional uniformitarian geologists.

    To the diluviologist this means, of course, that only the local succession has to be explained by Flood-related processes. Very seldom do all ten geologic systems have to be accounted for in terms of Flood deposition.

    There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent. It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out.

  • MrFreeze

    You know, I thought we all had you fooled Perry. Then you go and drop that bomb on us. I guess you proved us wrong!

  • botchtowersociety


  • Perry

    Remember the formula Mr. Freeze - the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. The rocks are meaningless without the fossils to date them according to uniformitarianists.

    Calm down botchtower ..... this is what people do when they work through things, takes time.

  • bohm

    Jesus never existed. Why?

    Ancient jerusalem never existed! Why?

    Because you cant go out and dig a hole in the ground and find perfectly layered, intact remains of every periode of settlement in jerusalem from now and back to jesus time!

    Who cares you get a remarkable remains of buildings from (i assume) pretty much every historical periode in jerusalem, if they arent perfectly layered, intact an in the same place, it just didnt happend!

    rooooock ----> foooosssil ---> rooooooocckk -----> fooooossill -----> rooooooock ---> roooooooock (CRAP!)

  • thetrueone

    You know your dealing with an idiot when he cant answer to a long list of information that people have been bringing to his attention.

    Perry continues to not understand logic and reason.

    Cant counterpoint because he has nothing to counterpoint with.

    Perry thinks he's spiritually connected with god so thats why he presents no purposeful reason to imply mortal human logic.

    MrFreeze probably said it right...

    God can do anything so there is your answer. God did it. You cannot beat someone who uses that logic. Sometimes the only way to win, is to not play.

Share this