Do we REALLY know if Dinosaurs ---> Motor Oil?
- Thread starter Daryll
- Start date
- Status
hahahaha +1
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
Agreed. My point was merely a mental exercise of "what if".
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
Agreed. My point was merely a mental exercise of "what if".
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence, or the fact that saying "neither position can be proved" doesn't exactly help one's own effort to advance one of those positions...
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence, or the fact that saying "neither position can be proved" doesn't exactly help one's own effort to advance one of those positions...
This thread was a discussion about the origins of oil, not advancing a specific position.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence, or the fact that saying "neither position can be proved" doesn't exactly help one's own effort to advance one of those positions...
I would not call it evidence as it does not prove anything. It's data, and the data is interpreted according to what world view one holds. The data fits a young earth, catastrophic flood model very well. As for proof, there is really no way to prove billions of years because there are too many assumptions involved and no way to test those assumptions since nobody can go back in time. It takes great faith to believe in billions of years. Both positions are religious.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
The bottom line is that neither position, billions of years or thousands of years, can be proved.
I'm not sure what's more worth pointing out: the fact that the 4.5 billion estimate is the result of decades and decades of rigorous accumulation of evidence, or the fact that saying "neither position can be proved" doesn't exactly help one's own effort to advance one of those positions...
I would not call it evidence as it does not prove anything. It's data, and the data is interpreted according to what world view one holds. The data fits a young earth, catastrophic flood model very well. As for proof, there is really no way to prove billions of years because there are too many assumptions involved and no way to test those assumptions since nobody can go back in time. It takes great faith to believe in billions of years. Both positions are religious.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
6,000 - 10,000 years is on the early side of our best estimates of when dogs were domesticated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog)
Evidence of human history stretches well prior to that range of time. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic
In a flood, fossils would be deposited according to statistical distributions with all kinds of life forms at all depths within a single geological stratum. Instead, the fossil record is cleanly stratified across many geological strata, with not a single example outside of where one would expect it to be based on evolutionary theory. This not only eviscerates the idea of a worldwide flood, but also suggests that life is far older than 10,000 years. Discussed in many parts here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
All links cite primary sources.
Your move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
6,000 - 10,000 years is on the early side of our best estimates of when dogs were domesticated. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog)
Evidence of human history stretches well prior to that range of time. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic
In a flood, fossils would be deposited according to statistical distributions with all kinds of life forms at all depths within a single geological stratum. Instead, the fossil record is cleanly stratified across many geological strata, with not a single example outside of where one would expect it to be based on evolutionary theory. This not only eviscerates the idea of a worldwide flood, but also suggests that life is far older than 10,000 years. Discussed in many parts here: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
All links cite primary sources.
Your move.
Dating methods are highly suspect and different labs have given back wildly different ages for samples from the same object. Without written verification, it's anybody's guess. Such dating methods, based on untestable assumptions, does not constitute evidence.
Flooding typically results in stratified deposits. Example (one of many) of flood stratification: "The river shown below was dammed by ice from the toe of a glacier, which created a very large lake. The ice dam broke catastrophically, producing a huge flood. The flood waters transported very large volumes of sediment in huge dunes. After normal river processes resumed, the river eroded into the flood deposits, exposing the cross stratification in these impressive dunes." Quote is from near the bottom of this page:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/sumner/gel109/SedStructures/Dunes.html
Flooding typically results in stratified deposits. Example (one of many) of flood stratification: "The river shown below was dammed by ice from the toe of a glacier, which created a very large lake. The ice dam broke catastrophically, producing a huge flood. The flood waters transported very large volumes of sediment in huge dunes. After normal river processes resumed, the river eroded into the flood deposits, exposing the cross stratification in these impressive dunes." Quote is from near the bottom of this page:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/sumner/gel109/SedStructures/Dunes.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Dating methods are highly suspect and different labs have given back wildly different ages for samples from the same object. Without written verification, it's anybody's guess. Such dating methods, based on untestable assumptions, does not constitute evidence.
You need to be more specific and provide examples before I can respond here. I think I know what you mean (and I get the distinct impression that you haven't actually read the links I provided), but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
How much variation do you think labs generate, and in what kinds of tests on what kinds of rock? (I'm sure you know there are many, many methods of dating rocks.) Exactly what assumptions are untestable?
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Flooding typically results in stratified deposits. Example (one of many) of flood stratification: "The river shown below was dammed by ice from the toe of a glacier, which created a very large lake. The ice dam broke catastrophically, producing a huge flood. The flood waters transported very large volumes of sediment in huge dunes. After normal river processes resumed, the river eroded into the flood deposits, exposing the cross stratification in these impressive dunes." Quote is from near the bottom of this page:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/sumner/gel109/SedStructures/Dunes.html
This is stratification of sediment, not rock. The geological strata I mentioned earlier were rock strata.
Dating methods are highly suspect and different labs have given back wildly different ages for samples from the same object. Without written verification, it's anybody's guess. Such dating methods, based on untestable assumptions, does not constitute evidence.
You need to be more specific and provide examples before I can respond here. I think I know what you mean (and I get the distinct impression that you haven't actually read the links I provided), but I don't want to put words in your mouth.
How much variation do you think labs generate, and in what kinds of tests on what kinds of rock? (I'm sure you know there are many, many methods of dating rocks.) Exactly what assumptions are untestable?
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Flooding typically results in stratified deposits. Example (one of many) of flood stratification: "The river shown below was dammed by ice from the toe of a glacier, which created a very large lake. The ice dam broke catastrophically, producing a huge flood. The flood waters transported very large volumes of sediment in huge dunes. After normal river processes resumed, the river eroded into the flood deposits, exposing the cross stratification in these impressive dunes." Quote is from near the bottom of this page:
http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/sumner/gel109/SedStructures/Dunes.html
This is stratification of sediment, not rock. The geological strata I mentioned earlier were rock strata.
doodfood,
I've been picking up issues of a certain magazine for about the last 12-15 years as I see them in the newsagents, just to get a view of different perspectives.
The logic that is presented in those magazines is circular in nature, involving a presumption that "first we know", and a statement of age, then a refutation of evidence, based on the first premise, then the provision of "modern evidence" to support the strawman thus created.
It's always circular.
A great example is opalised/fossilised fenceposts, purportedly refuting the fact that fossils are old, when a chemistry lab can produce the results in weeks...
It's an implosion of defined preconceptions defining a "point/singularity" of view, rather than an exploration of the evidence providing and expanding point of reference.
I've been picking up issues of a certain magazine for about the last 12-15 years as I see them in the newsagents, just to get a view of different perspectives.
The logic that is presented in those magazines is circular in nature, involving a presumption that "first we know", and a statement of age, then a refutation of evidence, based on the first premise, then the provision of "modern evidence" to support the strawman thus created.
It's always circular.
A great example is opalised/fossilised fenceposts, purportedly refuting the fact that fossils are old, when a chemistry lab can produce the results in weeks...
It's an implosion of defined preconceptions defining a "point/singularity" of view, rather than an exploration of the evidence providing and expanding point of reference.
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Originally Posted By: outoforder
If the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, then oil is being created at a rate faster than any current projections.
Your time frame is correct. The oil was created largely by mass burial of organic matter during the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
I'm a tad interested in where all of that water came from, volume wise to inundate all of the peaks (4/3 x pi x (R^3-r^3)), and then to recede.
Do you think that Noah may have had a couple of thermos flasks of cellular material to carry around, rather than 2 -7 of everything and something to feed them ?
Originally Posted By: outoforder
If the earth is only 6-10,000 years old, then oil is being created at a rate faster than any current projections.
Your time frame is correct. The oil was created largely by mass burial of organic matter during the worldwide flood of Noah's day.
I'm a tad interested in where all of that water came from, volume wise to inundate all of the peaks (4/3 x pi x (R^3-r^3)), and then to recede.
Do you think that Noah may have had a couple of thermos flasks of cellular material to carry around, rather than 2 -7 of everything and something to feed them ?
Shannow, you ask an interesting question. To answer it effectively would require biblical references. I'll send you a private message with further thoughts on the matter.
The formula for radiometric dating is based one certain assumptions. Since the prevailing view is that the earth is 4 billion years old, scientists look for ways to have their radiometric dating fit the paradigm. No one questions it when a rock is found to be 2 million years old. However, there is no explanation for when radiometric dates the carcass of a recently deceased animal to be 3000 years old. It's assumptions based on assumptions. If anyone one of them are incorrect, the entire theory crumbles.
Still waiting for an actual description of what those assumptions are. We can throw allegations around all day, but it's all vapor without specific instances.
The links I provided actually describe the hypotheses and assumptions underpinning the research, the bases for those hypotheses and assumptions, and how those hypotheses and assumptions were tested. I would encourage you to make sure you know what scientists are actually saying before commenting -- and please, do us a favor and don't just take Ken Ham's word for it.
The links I provided actually describe the hypotheses and assumptions underpinning the research, the bases for those hypotheses and assumptions, and how those hypotheses and assumptions were tested. I would encourage you to make sure you know what scientists are actually saying before commenting -- and please, do us a favor and don't just take Ken Ham's word for it.
What if the assumptions underpinning the research are wrong?
Either you're not listening to me, or there is a communication issue between us that is so fundamental that it would take too much time to resolve. I'm going to have to bow out until something new or directly pertinent to the outstanding questions comes into this conversation. Sorry.
Originally Posted By: outoforder
What if the assumptions underpinning the research are wrong?
Dating has been carried out by thinkers and scientist, who use a methodological approach to see what can be learned...they don't start with a given number, then choose facts to back it up.
Tree rings are great, you don't need a 10,000 year old tree, you can fingerprint the overlapping lives, and backtrack...but to some, a 2,000 year old tree can both prove that the tree is 2,000 years old, and therefore meets the pre-concieved mission, or has more than 1 per year, to fit the pre-conceived statement, which the facts have to prove.
What if the assumptions underpinning the research are wrong?
Dating has been carried out by thinkers and scientist, who use a methodological approach to see what can be learned...they don't start with a given number, then choose facts to back it up.
Tree rings are great, you don't need a 10,000 year old tree, you can fingerprint the overlapping lives, and backtrack...but to some, a 2,000 year old tree can both prove that the tree is 2,000 years old, and therefore meets the pre-concieved mission, or has more than 1 per year, to fit the pre-conceived statement, which the facts have to prove.
- Status
