Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[-57]

They don't, go do some research on the Ediacaran fossils, they clearly show ancestors of the Cambrian "explosion".

Once again empty claims. Where do the Ediacaran fossils show ancesters in the cambriam explosion?

 

[David_M]

I don't think anyone was making the claim that radiometric dating was "reset" during the flood.

You are dodging the question. The evidence is absolutely clear that the strata of the earth are not of the same age. It is also absolutely clear that some of them were in no way formed under water.

Secondly you didn't address the issue why we still find soft tissue in dino bone/fossils that shouldn't be there as well as C14 that should have decayed in 57K years and it still being found in coal and diamonds.

No such material has ever been found. What has been found is mineralised soft tissue which is a very different thing. Also you need to supply a reason as to why such material cannot survive as we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times.

The C14 in coal and diamonds is present due to well-known processes and is due to the radiation that exists underground.

 

[David_M]

Once again empty claims. Where do the Ediacaran fossils show ancesters in the cambriam explosion?

The Ediacaran and Vendian fossils predate the cambrian. Some of the phyla that you claim appear in the Cambrian actually date back to the Vendian or ediacaran.

The whole use of the phrase "many phyla" is deceptive, it gives the illusion that there was a lot of differentiation when what was present were very simple (marine only) representatives of many of the animal phyla, the evidence is that a number of phyla evolved well before the Cambrian and the pelagic phyla evolved afterwards.

Of course what it also fails to mention is that all of the land plant phyla evolved well after the Cambrian.

For example Kimberella is a member of the Ediacaran fauna and was definitely a bilaterian (and might have been a protostome). That means that animals were diversifying well before the Cambrian.

 

[-57]

You are dodging the question. The evidence is absolutely clear that the strata of the earth are not of the same age. It is also absolutely clear that some of them were in no way formed under water.




No such material has ever been found. What has been found is mineralised soft tissue which is a very different thing. Also you need to supply a reason as to why such material cannot survive as we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times.

The C14 in coal and diamonds is present due to well-known processes and is due to the radiation that exists underground.

You said "we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times."
...That's an assumption.

 

[David_M]

You said "we have known that amber can preserve protein fragments for extremely long times."
...That's an assumption.

No, its a fact. We can determine how old a sample of amber is and we know that protein fragments can be recovered from insects and plant fragments trapped inside amber.

 

[-57]

No, its a fact. We can determine how old a sample of amber is and we know that protein fragments can be recovered from insects and plant fragments trapped inside amber.

The ages are faulty. Everyone knows that.
The soft dino tissue CLEARLY points that out.
The C14 found in coal backs up the previous.

 

[David_M]

The ages are faulty. Everyone knows that.
The soft dino tissue CLEARLY points that out.
The C14 found in coal backs up the previous.

As you have already been informed there is no dinosaur soft tissue.
The C14 in coal comes from known underground sources.

 

[-57]

As you have already been informed there is no dinosaur soft tissue.
The C14 in coal comes from known underground sources.

No soft dino tissue? If you say so.
C14 came from a known underground source? If that were the case he "source" would have to be enourmous...and that isn't the case.

 

[David_M]

No soft dino tissue? If you say so.
C14 came from a known underground source? If that were the case he "source" would have to be enourmous...and that isn't the case.

Says the people who find such things. Says the evidence.

Natural radioactivity is the source, more than enough of that underground. The level of such radiation in surrounding rocks correlates with the levels of C14 found in the coal. Some coal has no C14, a fact that YECs never seem to mention, so much for it being formed recently.

 

[-57]

Says the people who find such things. Says the evidence.

Natural radioactivity is the source, more than enough of that underground. The level of such radiation in surrounding rocks correlates with the levels of C14 found in the coal. Some coal has no C14, a fact that YECs never seem to mention, so much for it being formed recently.

Reference please.

 

[David_M]

Reference please.

All that is required is beta decay, releasing neutrons (which is the mechanism of C14 creation in the atmosphere). Radium and Uranium are not uncommon in rock deposits.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

 

[-57]

All that is required is beta decay, releasing neutrons (which is the mechanism of C14 creation in the atmosphere). Radium and Uranium are not uncommon in rock deposits.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm

You can start at 5:40

 

[David_M]

You can start at 5:40

You want me to watch Juby?

He managed 15 seconds before demonstrating his ignorance (or more likely his wilful dishonesty). If contamination was occurring in artefacts that would make them older than the result obtained from testing, which makes a young earth even less possible.

Of course the possibility of contamination is why reputable scientists take great care with sample preparation.

At around 6 minutes he just lies his ass off. Uranium is not the only source of neutrons and the slow decay of uranium allows the continuous generation of neutrons and thus C14. He has no concept of the physics involved, as evidenced by his "98% Uranium" comment.

 

[Jimmy D]

You want me to watch Juby?

He managed 15 seconds before demonstrating his ignorance (or more likely his wilful dishonesty). If contamination was occurring in artefacts that would make them older than the result obtained from testing, which makes a young earth even less possible.

Of course the possibility of contamination is why reputable scientists take great care with sample preparation.

At around 6 minutes he just lies his ass off. Uranium is not the only source of neutrons and the slow decay of uranium allows the continuous generation of neutrons and thus C14. He has no concept of the physics involved, as evidenced by his "98% Uranium" comment.

Who cares? When you need to protect you beliefs in the face of mountains of evidence, from every scientific discipline, desperate measures are required.

 

[Aman777]

Anyone want to TRY and support the false ToE with actual evidence which agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Deleted

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyone want to TRY and support the false ToE with actual evidence which agrees in EVERY way with EVERY discovery of Science?

I don't want a discussion with someone who is incapable of understanding what evidence is.

 

[Aman777]

I don't want a discussion with someone who is incapable of understanding what evidence is.

I know what evidence is and that is WHY I show that the False Theory of Evolution has NO evidence to support it which is not easily REFUTED (proven wrong). Want to try and bamboozle us with your "evidence" of how and when God's superior intelligence got into Apes? Of course not since you follow the religion of evolution, which is supported ONLY by other evol religionists. I call it "circular reasoning" since it has NO evidence to support it and it MUST be accepted by Blind Faith in the changeable science/beliefs of mere mortal men.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what evidence is and that is WHY I show that the False Theory of Evolution has NO evidence to support it which is not easily REFUTED (proven wrong). Want to try and bamboozle us with your "evidence" of how and when God's superior intelligence got into Apes? Of course not since you follow the religion of evolution, which is supported ONLY by other evol religionists. I call it "circular reasoning" since it has NO evidence to support it and it MUST be accepted by Blind Faith in the changeable science/beliefs of mere mortal men.

Your post demonstrates the fact that you have no clue about what is and what is not evidence.

Here is a big hint for you:

Read my sig.

 

[Aman777]

Your post demonstrates the fact that you have no clue about what is and what is not evidence.

Here is a big hint for you:

Read my sig.

Then it should be easy for you to tell us How and When prehistoric people became like modern Humans, in intelligence. It's easy and should be told in less than a single sentence. Anything more will be Occam's Razor'd as too complicated. I predict you will flee. Fool me.