Notice how this question could never do anything to contribute to a sensible discussion.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?
- Thread starter carolus magnus
- Start date
Notice how this question could never do anything to contribute to a sensible discussion.
1. Rocks on Earth:
Zircons found in Western Australia date by uranium-lead radioisotope dating to 4.37 billion years old.
2. The Holy Wikipedia summarises the following dates for meteorites:
Statistics for several meteorites that have undergone isochron dating are as follows:
| 1. | Pb-Pb isochron | 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years | |
| 2. | Sm-Nd isochron | 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years | |
| 3. | Rb-Sr isochron | 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years | |
| 4. | Re-Os isochron | 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years | |
| 1. | Pb-Pb isochron | 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years | |
| 2. | Pb-Pb isochron | 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years | |
| 3. | Sm-Nd isochron | 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years | |
| 4. | Rb-Sr isochron | 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years | |
| 1. | Pb-Pb isochron | 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years | |
| 2. | Ar-Ar age spectrum | 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years | |
| 3. | Ar-Ar age spectrum | 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years | |
| 4. | Ar-Ar age spectrum | 4.56 ± 0.05 billion years |
3. The density of cosmic ray tracks left in surface moon rocks corresponds to an age of 4.51 billion years old.
What further discussion would be of particular interest to you?
Stuart
Last edited:
Perhaps I should have started one step back: what is your understanding of what scientific peer review is, and how it works in practice?
Stuart
Notice how this question could never do anything to contribute to a sensible discussion.
The explanations of Darwinists for the existence of strata run into numerous fundamental problems that are fatal to their ideas. This is why they consistently steer conversations toward nonsense and irrationality.
For example, they cannot even give a sensible explanation of deposition. If we take a simple, hypothetical lake with a river running into it, the long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years. However, if we look at an actual lake, we find that 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.
They have workarounds for this, suggesting that long-term subsidence continually created disequilibrium, allowing constant net deposition. That's where they insist that the conversation not include the fact that strata can be continent-sized.
For example, they cannot even give a sensible explanation of deposition. If we take a simple, hypothetical lake with a river running into it, the long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years. However, if we look at an actual lake, we find that 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.
They have workarounds for this, suggesting that long-term subsidence continually created disequilibrium, allowing constant net deposition. That's where they insist that the conversation not include the fact that strata can be continent-sized.
Are you saying that there are continents that were entirely covered by lakes in the past?
Stuart
Reading is your second language, isn't it?
NEWS FLASH: The entire planet was covered in water.
Non-sequitur; it's obviously just a meaningless coincidence.
Right Divider
Body part
That's all very cute, but relies on some unprovable assumptions about the origin of the elements in the first place.
The origin of radioactive elements on earth.
The evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
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
But without discussion of the origin of the elements you would accept that cosmic ray track densities demonstrate the 4.5 billion year history of surface moon rocks?
Stuart
And what is your understanding of the outcomes that are expected of this process?
Stuart
:dunce:
No, 阿呆.
Not "lakes," plural.
OCEAN, singular.
The flood waters covered the entire earth. That means ALL LAND WAS COVERED.
I expect the outcomes to be that which preserves the incomes of the "peers" in question. In other words: Conformity. The status quo, etc.
Do you apply your idea to the Journal of Creation Science, which is also claimed to contain peer-reviewed science?
Stuart
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, if you ask me.