(June 16, 2012 at 12:19 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If you're proposing that the Grand Canyon was formed after the flood, then why doesn't the rest of the world look like it's been flooded and eroded to that extent? I find it suspicious that the Grand Canyon is the only example of the flood that creationists can give in terms of erosion and stuff.

The topic was consistency in dating, not the Flood. The "dates" for each of those layers are progressively older in the millions, but the lack of erosion contradicts these dates.

(June 16, 2012 at 10:15 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: You call these sources?

I gave the first link because it contained tables of a number of dates for one rock set. I'm having an extremely hard time finding an unabridged list of such dates, as I said before. Usually evolution and creation sites both pick only the "convenient" ones. If you can find an impartial list, please post it! In a meta-analysis, it does not matter who wrote it, unless you think them capable of creating false evidence. The second link simply had a nice picture, and I referred only to the picture. Ad hominems are not going to get us anywhere. Find us a journaled meta-analysis--they seem very well hidden.

---

(June 16, 2012 at 2:04 am)cato123 Wrote: Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon?

Pray tell me, what are geochronologists' and geologists' opinions when it comes to the Grand Canyon? It's hard to find a secular page that mentions the level strata.

(June 15, 2012 at 10:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm)libalchris Wrote: The earth is 4.54 billion years old, and the universe 14.6 billion. The evidence for an old universe (being able to actually see stars billions of lightyears away) is just as strong as the evidence for an old earth (different kinds of radiometric dating on different objects giving consistent dates. Thick geological layers that form at very slow rates, and a lot more)

I just discovered these:
http://www.examiner.com/article/grand-ca...tric-dates
http://www.icr.org/article/excessively-o...ava-flows/

If you examined a meta-study, you might find the dates inconsistent (depending on how much leeway you want to give scientists). The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?

As for stars, their light may be evidence of age, but it is not where God is concerned. He made the stars for us to see. It is logical that the all-powerful Designer of the universe would create the light-trails too, rather than create a mass of rock and wait 14 billion years before adding humans. Or maybe he did, thereby reconciling modern science with Bible. Pick your poison.

Awesome, The ICR, and some political student for sources. For hopefully obvious reasons I'm not going to accept any radiometric dating results from creationists. In case it's not obvious, it's because they have a horrible track record of using radiometric dating incorrectly. I stopped reading when I came across the name Austin. That's the moron who tried to K-Ar date the Mt St Helens eruption.

Also, you should try learning some basic astronomy. (It's absolutely fascinating how much the universe looks old.) God in his infinite wisdom has made many stars that are apparently millions of years old. He has also apparently created the remnants of dead stars when in fact the star never really existed, it just looks like it did. (I suggest reading about light echos) Oh, and don't forget about supernovas from other galaxies. The star we saw from that galaxy never actually existed, God just made it look like it did, and then the light from the supernova arrived.

---

(June 15, 2012 at 10:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The picture in the second link is especially interesting (edit: better color picture partway down http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...nas-basalt ). The higher layers are thin and flat. Old layers should be tilted, since pitch indicates erosion. No erosion = young. The higher layers must therefore have been laid down in rapid succession. How do you suppose that happened?

try reading a geology textbook. Different layers form at different rates, and undergo different amounts of erosion in different places and different times. Some layers show little evidence of erosion, while others show a lot of erosion, or even massive amounts of erosion cutting through several layers; like the fucking massive canyon in Arizona. Perhaps you can tell me why Noah's flood somehow had the strength to carve through a massive canyon like the grand canyon (also somehow in the winding shape of the Colorado River) yet left many places rather untouched.

(June 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 16, 2012 at 10:15 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: You call these sources?

I gave the first link because it contained tables of a number of dates for one rock set.

That doesn't address my question. A creotard site is not a legitimate source. For anyone with any fucking SENSE, that is.

Quote:I'm having an extremely hard time finding an unabridged list of such dates, as I said before.

That doesn't make a creotard site a source.

Quote:Usually evolution and creation sites both pick only the "convenient" ones.

TRUE for creotards, absolutely. But for legitimate scientific/geological sites, you are merely projecting your own dishonesty and disingenuousness on those whom you would wish to discredit based on your own agenda.

Quote:If you can find an impartial list, please post it!

Not gonna do your homework for you.

Quote: In a meta-analysis, it does not matter who wrote it, unless you think them capable of creating false evidence.

Wow, how disingenuous.

Quote:The second link simply had a nice picture, and I referred only to the picture.

Don't really care what your justification for using your creotard site is.

Quote:Ad hominems are not going to get us anywhere. Find us a journaled meta-analysis--they seem very well hidden.

I am not going to play the "teach the 'controversy'" game, fuck you very much. And you clearly do not know what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy and what does not. Your being a disingenuous fucktard and presenting bullshit creotard sutes as if they were legitimate sources is not going to "get us anywhere".

---

Quote:[quote='cato123' pid='300127' dateline='1339826699']
Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon? [quote]
Pray tell me, what are geochronologists' and geologists' opinions when it comes to the Grand Canyon? It's hard to find a secular page that mentions the level strata.

You didn't address the question.

(June 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 16, 2012 at 12:19 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If you're proposing that the Grand Canyon was formed after the flood, then why doesn't the rest of the world look like it's been flooded and eroded to that extent? I find it suspicious that the Grand Canyon is the only example of the flood that creationists can give in terms of erosion and stuff.

The topic was consistency in dating, not the Flood. The "dates" for each of those layers are progressively older in the millions, but the lack of erosion contradicts these dates.

(June 16, 2012 at 10:15 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: You call these sources?

I gave the first link because it contained tables of a number of dates for one rock set. I'm having an extremely hard time finding an unabridged list of such dates, as I said before. Usually evolution and creation sites both pick only the "convenient" ones. If you can find an impartial list, please post it! In a meta-analysis, it does not matter who wrote it, unless you think them capable of creating false evidence. The second link simply had a nice picture, and I referred only to the picture. Ad hominems are not going to get us anywhere. Find us a journaled meta-analysis--they seem very well hidden.

---

(June 16, 2012 at 2:04 am)cato123 Wrote: Why should I consider Terry's opinion equal to that of geochronologists and geologists when it comes to the Grand Canyon?

Pray tell me, what are geochronologists' and geologists' opinions when it comes to the Grand Canyon? It's hard to find a secular page that mentions the level strata.

Why do people who are naturally stupid to begin with insist on making themselves even more stupid by reading the creationist bullshit?

Erosion and deposition are opposing processes, Moron, When there is deposition, there is no erosion. Erosion of a particular layer not only require deposition stops, but also that the overlaying, younger layers vovering the particular layer all erode away. Erosion only start when a layer is EXPOSED. If an anceint layer remain bauried continously burned for 100 trillion years by the products of new deposition, it will show no erotion inspite of its 100 tirllion years, you moron.

The stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon sequence is primarily a record of prolonged despoition as settlmentary layers are laid down continuously layer upon layer.
What fuck erotion would you expect to see in a 2 billion year old layer that was continuously buried until its exposure by coloroado river erosion within the last few thousand years? Moron?

As it turns out, if you know ehere to look, there is trememdous amount of evidence of extremely lengthy erosion in the Grand Canyon.

Look up "Ordovician Inconformity" in a real geological source, moron, instead of your creationist crap.

(June 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(June 16, 2012 at 1:34 pm)Undeceived Wrote: The topic was consistency in dating, not the Flood. The "dates" for each of those layers are progressively older in the millions, but the lack of erosion contradicts these dates.

I gave the first link because it contained tables of a number of dates for one rock set. I'm having an extremely hard time finding an unabridged list of such dates, as I said before. Usually evolution and creation sites both pick only the "convenient" ones. If you can find an impartial list, please post it! In a meta-analysis, it does not matter who wrote it, unless you think them capable of creating false evidence. The second link simply had a nice picture, and I referred only to the picture. Ad hominems are not going to get us anywhere. Find us a journaled meta-analysis--they seem very well hidden.

---

Pray tell me, what are geochronologists' and geologists' opinions when it comes to the Grand Canyon? It's hard to find a secular page that mentions the level strata.

Why do people who are naturally stupid to begin with insist on making themselves even more stupid by reading the creationist bullshit?

Erosion and deposition are opposing processes, Moron, When there is deposition, there is no erosion. Erosion of a particular layer not only require deposition stops, but also that the overlaying, younger layers vovering the particular layer all erode away. Erosion only start when a layer is EXPOSED. If an anceint layer remain bauried continously burned for 100 trillion years by the products of new deposition, it will show no erotion inspite of its 100 tirllion years, you moron.

The stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon sequence is primarily a record of prolonged despoition as settlmentary layers are laid down continuously layer upon layer.
What fuck erotion would you expect to see in a 2 billion year old layer that was continuously buried until its exposure by coloroado river erosion within the last few thousand years? Moron?

As it turns out, if you know ehere to look, there is trememdous amount of evidence of extremely lengthy erosion in the Grand Canyon.

Look up "Ordovician Inconformity" in a real geological source, moron, instead of your creationist crap.

Slam. Fucking. Dunk.

Check. Fucking. Mate.

Game. Fucking. Set. Fucking. Match.