Why Won't They Carbon Date This?

by Perry 246 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • startingover

    Just wanted to say that Perry joined this board not too long after I did, and I always enjoyed his well reasoned posts. But back then it was all about the flaws in the WTS. It appears sometime around 2005 he found Jesus. Things changed. His posts have now become just like the JW apologists. He's right and if you disagree and point out why, he ignores it and goes on to something else. I'm sure he truly believes everything he stands for, not unlike the JW's I know.

    I for one enjoyed the old Perry much more.

  • Leolaia
    "I can find no reference to how any of the Rock layers were assigned their respective ages but at the same time I can find no reference to fossils, so it is doubtful that they were used. This means that this site shows nothing about fossil order."


    The above reference indicates that this basis is lacking in fossils. Does your report claim fossils in all layers?

    I gave you an actual geological report of that site; your question is readily answered by the discussion therein. In response you quote a creationist who obviously hasn't seen a report like this, who says "I can find no reference to fossils" and who speculates on this basis "it is doubtful that they were used," and then you infer from this that this reference "indicates that this basis is lacking in fossils." No, it does not.

    The report mentions fossils (many are microfossils) and biostratigraphic zones from nearly every layer and formation; the main exception is an igneous layer which is dateable radiometrically (independently confirming the Mesozoic dating). Your reference simply hasn't seen a report like this and makes assumptions on the basis of personal ignorance and then you present this assumption as an "indication" that the layers are unfossilferous.

    One of the problems is that if you take the maximum layers assigned to a particular label and add them all together you come up with a geologic column 100 to 200 miles thick!

    No, that's silly. You don't add together all the layers at their maximum thickness from all over the world and stack them together and expect that such a column would be present in any locality; thickness and preservation of strata vary considerably due to local vulcanism, tectonics, depositation, erosion, uplift, compression, etc. Your claim from Woodmorappe had a response from the essay I linked earlier, which I may quote here:

    "The Geologic column is not, nor was ever meant, to represent a complete record of day-to-day sedimentation on the Earth. A local geologic column is a sequence of rocks that represent the history of deposition in that particular area. Geologists are well aware that some regions of the Earth may undergo erosive events that remove rocks or non-depositional periods in which no rocks are formed. Creationists see these as the excuses of the apostates rather than the consequence of a dynamic Earth. One creationist (Woodmorappe-Peczkis) makes the absurd claim that the absence of a 100 mile thick sequence in a single location negates the geologic column....Such a statement is, of course absurd in the highest degree, since no geologist would ever make such a demand of the geologic column. It (the column) is a description of time-progressive units that are subject to normal cycles of the Earth. In fact, a better argument against the existence of the geologic column would be to encounter a complete 100 mile thick sequence from the Archean through the Cenozoic!! Woodmorappe/Peczkis seems to make a big deal about the total maximum thickness of the geologic column being absent in any particular location....In fact, this is the strawman in its entirety. Woody/Peczkis redefines the Geologic column and then shows why his definition is false. Of course if you start off with a misrepresentation of fact, it is easy to destroy that same misrepresentation, but it is hardly good science (or in this case, it is particularly poor theology!). The geologic column is a sequence of strata that is independent of total thickness and always has been."

    So the original column, if it existed must have been deeper that the earth's crust. I can't accept that.So not only is 99.6% of the earth's surface devoid of the supposed geologic column, the few places where it is claimed is extremely thin, representing just a few percentage points of the original in depth.

    What is this "original" column and "original" depth you speak of? The strata in any locality don't start out ab ovo at a maximum thickness and inclusion of layers; they are a dynamic product of geological processes.

    However horizontal layering as found in the movement of water is a much more plausible answer.

    You mean "Noah's Flood", I presume.

    But layering outcrops can be easily replicated with water movement causing horizontal deposits as opposed to the vertical in the traditional view. Note the naturally occuring layers below.

    Again, this is nonsense. The layering was not done in a single catastrophic event. Strata were laid over a variety of geologic and climactic situations; layers of sedimentary rock may alternate with layers of igneous rock (which vary in paleomagnetic signatures, indicating that they were laid at different times), for instance. Fossil soils, or paleosols, preserved under igneous and sedimentary layers (which may contain root traces and other evidence of vegetation) also are impossible in this scenario. The link I gave in my earlier post replies to this claim by Woodmorappe:

    "Woodmorappe is clearly hoping that most readers will never bother to actually step into the field and examine the rock record. If they do, they will find clear evidence not only of erosion/non-depostion, but also of features known as paleosols. If you look at the photo at the top of the page, you will see an excellent example of a well-developed paleosol in Missouri. The paleosol is developed on a granite dated to 1473 Ma and underneath the upper Cambrian-age Lamotte sandstone. Paleosols are fairly common features throughout the standard geologic column and no doubt are part of the reason that ye-creationists like Woodmorappe/Peczkis choose to reject the geologic column through the use of technical sounding statements. Why are paleosols so troubling for ye-creationism? Ye-creationists assert that the the geologic record is mainly a recording of a global Gilgameshian flood (the Hebrews referred to this myth as the Noachian flood) and that most of the sedimentary rocks observed on Earth resulted from deposition during this flood. Obviously, there is no chance for mature and thick soils to form during a global tempest such as the flood of Noah. Therefore, in creating a strawman picture of the Geologic column and then mercilessly attacking it, the creationist is not forced to deal with data that clearly refute the notion of a global flood. Paleosols are ancient soils that develop during periods of extensive sub-areal weathering and they are sometimes preserved in the geologic record. The key is that paleosols are found throughout the geologic column and represent periods of Earth history when the region they were found in WAS NOT covered by water. Paleosols in the midst of a global flood are not possible."

    Additionally fossils are regulary found in layers they aren't supposed to be in requiring the "index" fossils that date them to be constantly modified to fit the paradigm.

    They're anomalies. Of course anomalies exist; they are to be expected. And as further evidence comes to light, so biostratigraphy is modified and improved (just as in any other branch of science where empirical data improves earlier generalizations). But biostratigraphy overall works, it makes predictions reliably. That is why it is widely used, whether by scientists or by oil companies. It has predictive value and has independent support from other kinds of evidence. A single catastrophic event like Noah's Flood could not explain why the fossils of microscopic plants, protists, and creatures -- let alone larger species -- are so finely stratified geologically, nor even why we don't find a chaotic mixture of land and ocean fossils rather than consistent alternation in layers which can be associated with broader geologic changes (e.g. change from marine to shore to swamp to desert to lake, etc.).

    Are we to assume the the few that are still alive that were previously thought extinct 300 million years ago are the only ones?

    LOL, no one claims that the coelacanths discovered in the 20th century are the same species as those in deep antiquity. Index fossils involve distinctive morphological features at the species level. Coelacanths belong to a taxonomic order and comprise many families and genera, with at least 80 species recognized. Also it is not just one species but the intersection of an assortment of different species in a layer that reinforces the dating of that stratum, and the biodiversity attested in a given stratum is not willy nilly but informative about the ecology of locale at the time the rock was laid.

  • DagothUr

    Perry, there are no "bad" and "good" mutations. Just "adequate" to the specific environment or "inadequate". One "bad" mutation in an environment can be "beneficial" in another. This is a fundamental truth in evolutionism.

  • just n from bethel
    just n from bethel

    When I read fundies like Perry trying to argue science and valid research with Leolaia - I think of this girl:

    Leolaia FTW every time. This thread is done now. Perry lost. Time to move on.

  • TheOldHippie

    "Of course anomalies exist; they are to be expected. And as further evidence comes to light, so biostratigraphy is modified and improved (just as in any other branch of science where empirical data improves earlier generalizations). "

    It is a bit funnt to read statements like these. Evolutionary theory has managed the unbelievable, to state that "of course" there are anomalies, and even to state that they "are to be expected". That is a rather far cry from the smooth path envisioned by Darwin. It is Orwellianism and double-talk par excellance, to at the same time state that you have the step by step evoution and also state that anomalies not only exist but are to be expected - yes perhaps even be the rule .......

    And the second statement, the beautiful wishful thinking that in due time, as further evidence will come to light, THEN it will all be oh! so clear to us, THEN we will understand it all, THEN we will laugh at how stupid we or our ancestors were today, because THEN we will know the Truth wchich will set ut free ...... With absolutely no basis in present knowledge or evidence, they are able to continue giving us fairytales like these, like a giant on clay feet, suspended above the basis of facts.

    Replacing "any day now" with "as further evidence comes to light". What if there ain't any "any day now", what if there just ain't any "further evidence"?

    Funny. Funny.

  • Leolaia

    By analogy one could similarly say how silly it is to claim that there could be any reliability in criminal forensics when anomalies like contamination of evidence are known to exist. It doesn't matter that one could make reliable predictions with foresics most of the time; those anomalies show that this branch of science is nothing more than a fairytale. And how Orwellian it is to say that contamination of evidence is something that could be expected to occur occasionally; that is tantamount to admitting that the methodology is useless! "Of course there are anomalies", what double talk. Either forensics is 100% accurate, or ... its not worth anything at all. It's not 100% accurate, even its practitioners admit that errors can be made. And how laughable to say that the methodologies of forensics are continually modified on account of an improved understanding of the data. What wishful thinking it is to think that forensics refines its approaches and explanations. So what if forensics generally makes accurate predictions, there are those danged anomalies!

  • the-illuminator81

    Leolaia, you forgot to add that forensics are only reliable when they agree with the watchtower society.

Share this