What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

[Stuu]

I get that the density of cosmic ray tracks left in surface moon rocks corresponds to an age of 4.51 billion years old. I also know that according to you Darwinists, the age of the solar system is approximately 4.571 billion years. I further understand that those numbers might seem to gel together rather perfectly. It's all just a little too convenient,

Either you are a master of satire, or you have a genuine question about how the earliest solid rocks of the solar system are essentially all four and a half billion years old.

If it's the case of the genuine question, then it would be four and a half billion years ago that these rocks first formed crystal structures and became the kind of material that can be subjected to isochron dating. Can you see what further conclusions that must lead to?

If you are a master of satire then I respectfully acknowledge your abilities.

if you ask me.

That's a great thing about science. They won't ask you. And they won't ask me. Our opinions are irrelevant.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Are you claiming that continents were completely covered by lakes, which had "a river running into it...sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years...sediment in and sediment out quickly reaches an equilibrium. That is, for every grain that enters the lake, another will be swept out of it."?

Stuart

Reading is your second language, isn't it?

"The long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years."

Hint: We do not hold to the "long-age idea."

When are you going to engage sensibly.

 

[Right Divider]

When are you going to engage sensibly.

Never...

 

[7djengo7]

Do you apply your idea to the Journal of Creation Science, which is also claimed to contain peer-reviewed science?

Since, by "peer-reviewed science", all you mean is Darwin-cheerleading, why, of course nobody has claimed that Journal of Creation (your phrase, "Journal of Creation Science", can be found nowhere in the link you gave--but who, at this point, expects you, Stuu, to make an attempt to read anything accurately?) contains Darwin-cheerleading. Who (according to you) has claimed that it does?

​

Isn't 'sensible' a matter of opinion?​

You mean like how your calling the nonsense and falsehood that constitutes Darwinism, "science"--and your calling Darwin cheerleaders, "scientists", and "scientific peers", and your refusal to call Creationists, "scientists", and "scientific peers"--is a matter of opinion--your opinion?

And, no: 'sensible' is not a matter of opinion--it's merely a word, an adjective.​

 

[7djengo7]

That's a great thing about science. They won't ask you. And they won't ask me. Our opinions are irrelevant.

Stuart

LOL

Like your opinions about what should be called "science", and what should not be called "science", and about who should be called "scientists", and who should not be called "scientists"?

Why won't they ask you? You obviously like to pretend (on TOL, at least) that you're one really knowledgeable person, and yet, do you mean to tell me that those Darwin cheerleaders whom you revere as "science", and who do your thinking for you, won't ask you, Stuu?

And, irrelevant to what?

 

[Stuu]

Reading is your second language, isn't it?

"The long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years."

Hint: We do not hold to the "long-age idea."

When are you going to engage sensibly.

Can you explain why you are still writing about lakes if you mean oceans?

Can you justify your use of 'long-age" in regards to "thousands of years" when the geology of this planet has existed for 4,500,000 thousand years?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Why won't they ask you?

The reason is embodied in the motto of the Royal Society "Nullius In Verba".

Et tu, 7djendo7? In matters of fact, do you take no word but the "facts from experiments"?

Stuart

 

[User Name]

If it's the case of the genuine question, then it would be four and a half billion years ago that these rocks first formed crystal structures and became the kind of material that can be subjected to isochron dating. Can you see what further conclusions that must lead to?

No, but I'm afraid you are going to tell me...

 

[Stuu]

No, but I'm afraid you are going to tell me...

Would you rather I not?

Stuart

 

[User Name]

Would you rather I not?

On second thought, go right ahead. I have determined that my faith is impenetrable.

 

[Stuu]

On second thought, go right ahead. I have determined that my faith is impenetrable.

Very sorry to hear it. Is there anything we can do to help?

Stuart

 

[User Name]

Very sorry to hear it. Is there anything we can do to help?

Unlikely, but feel free to proceed.

 

[Stuu]

Unlikely, but feel free to proceed.

Very well then. Conclusions to be drawn from the dating of the solar system to 4.5 billion years ago: I should firstly pay due respects to the OP, and make the link that by establishing that there has never been a time when the entire surface of the earth was covered in water (well for the current audience it just has to be no such time while humans were present) there is therefore no point in obsessing over a non-existent flooding event in search of explanations for the so-called polystrate fossils.

Melting resets isochrons. That means one of three things:

1. The solid objects of the solar system that have been isochron dated were all in a molten state 4.5 billion years ago, and have been in a solid, crystalline form since. In turn that implies that the solar system we observe today is the result of a major rearrangement of matter that long ago, with no events like it since.
2. The solar system was poofed into existence at that time by some kind of magic, possibly involving freezing of molten substances.
3. The solar system was poofed into existence at some time since 4.5 billion years ago by some kind of magic, with solid materials being given carefully calculated ratios of multiple radioactive nuclides and daughter products with the intent of making the solar system look like it solidified 4.5 billion years ago.

If it has to be one of these, I can't see any good reason not to go with 1.

Can you see any good reason not to go with 1.?

Here is a good reason to go with 1. We can see exactly the same thing happening in other parts of the galaxy (I have previously posted this image):



This is not an artist's impression. It is a photograph of planetary accretion happening around a star in the constellation of Taurus. The isochrons in this matter are being reset by melting just as the isochrons in our matter were reset 4.5 billion years ago.

Stuart

 

[User Name]

I should firstly pay due respects to the OP, and make the link that by establishing that there has never been a time when the entire surface of the earth was covered in water...

Has there never been a time when the entire surface of the earth was covered in water? According to the Darwinistic atheists at PBS who made this video, the entire surface of the earth has been covered in H2O (in its solid form) not just once, but twice:

1. The solid objects of the solar system that have been isochron dated were all in a molten state 4.5 billion years ago, and have been in a solid, crystalline form since. In turn that implies that the solar system we observe today is the result of a major rearrangement of matter that long ago, with no events like it since...

Can you see any good reason not to go with 1.?

Not offhand. It is quite a conundrum, but one could just as easily go with option 3--namely that God created the universe ~6 thousand years ago, but He created it with the appearance of age.

 

[Stripe]

Can you explain why you are still writing about lakes if you mean oceans?]Can you justify your use of 'long-age" in regards to "thousands of years" when the geology of this planet has existed for 4,500,000 thousand years?Stuart

You're too stupid to talk to anymore. :wave2:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history

Do you assert that the Hydroplate Theory does not make a valid attempt at doing what you claim should be done?

without filtering it through Bronze Age

Is there something wrong with looking at history through the eyes of those who recorded it?

mythology?

What, exactly, are you claiming is "mythology"?

 

[User Name]

Wouldn't life be easier just modelling what appears to have happened in natural history...

A bit of mental gymnastics always helps. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Elon Musk and other Darwinialist atheists have gone so far as to assert that we are living in a simulation and that which we think is real is merely an illusion. We can only attempt to make sense out of the natural order, but things are often not as they appear.

 

[User Name]

Any objections to those?

Yes, but it's a tangent, so I'll start a new thread dedicated to this topic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you quite sure that is what Stripe meant?

Stuart

Quite.

 

[Stripe]

Quite.

I think Stuu is playing stupid. How could anyone not know that I hold to the global flood explanation for pretty much every aspect of geology? :chuckle: