No I will not leave the oil industry out of the argument, for the simple reason that, as I said, the oil industry needs to know the true ages of the fossils. This being the case, it is very much a relevant matter that needs to be taken into consideration.
I’m sorry, @r_speir, but if you’re going to discuss science, you need to take all the evidence into account, and not just the bits that tell you what your itching ears want to hear.
Then you’ve just made an unjustified assertion and nobody is under any obligation to pay the slightest bit of attention to it. You might as well have posted “Lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet.”
Telling people to Search The Fine Web may be appropriate if you are faced with unsolicited demands from strangers for tech support. It is not appropriate if you have made a claim and are being challenged to substantiate it.
They “corrected” data by a factor of ten to account for “typographical errors” but failed to provide any evidence that the figures they “corrected” were in error in the first place. That is fudging. Any responsible peer reviewer would have insisted that if there was any doubt about the integrity of their data, then it should be discarded and the experiment re-done.
The claim that the improper sampling of the Mt St Helens crystalline rock, disproved at least potassium argon dating bothered me the most. The claim has been refuted and it is known in geology circles .While the proponents YECist might dispute the refutation, they should not present this finding as established fact to an unsuspecting audience.
No you misunderstand. I will give you the same challenge I did to @John_Harshman. Find a native zircon directly above sediments containing fossils or a native zircon sandwiched in between two layers of sediments containing fossils. You won’t find one. [Transports do not count! And there are plenty of zircon transports]
That should keep you busy. I have some chores of my own to do.
True ages is what you do not have, but the oil industry is fine using relative ages in the millions of years to help them do their job. I will not discuss the oil industry any more with you You are trying to make an issue using a non-issue. You are the one with the age problem, not the oil industry.
Regardless of whether zircons are found directly above sediments containing fossils or not, and regardless of whether transports count or not, you still need to account for the fact that they contain lead.
That’s just admitting defeat. You can refuse to discuss the oil industry if you like, but it’s not going to go away. Your claims that it is a non-issue, and that they only use relative ages, are patently untrue.
You are the biggest child and looney bird I’ve ever come across. His argument works fine here. It would work anywhere people actually understand what he is saying. You do nothing but beat your chest, Dodge Challenges and talk aggressive to make it look like you have the upper hand. Everyone can see your grade school debate tactics from a mile away. Either start acting more reasonable and rationally or just go away, man. You are so predictable. I already know what you’re going to say back to me.
I mean this could be a very interesting conversation but you’re just hijacking it with your immaturity
No. The relevant numbers are derived simply from, in effect, laying the two genome next to each other and counting up the differences. This is a simple and plain example of what creationists are fond of calling “observational science.” While there is some variation in exactly what metric one will use to measure the degree of difference, that actual differences are solid observational facts, and not based on any theoretical presuppositions. That creationists deny even these facts only shows the depth of their desperation
That’s too bad, because that was the main point of my post. I guess you need some basic instruction on what natural selection actually entails. This is a pretty good place to get it:
Frankly, I think it’s entirely plausible that this person is engaging in some sort of Poe’s Law-inspired avante garde performance art. I feel like that’s the more generous interpretation of his actions and attitude.
Thanks @thoughtful for starting this thread. I also watched the full film and am interested in thoughtful, well-supported responses. Unfortunately, so many of the responses here are along the lines of “everybody knows this is nonsense” ( Argumentum ad populum fallacy) while providing little or no scholarly support references for their criticisms. On the contrary, the film provided a large amount of references to scholarly scientific journals - even written by evolutionists - supporting their points. I’m just not convinced by the “everybody knows this is nonsense” attitude and it’s very unprofessional, non-academic, and unscientific. If anyone has or is aware of a point-by-point well-supported rebuttal or response to this film (I know- the film just released - but at some point…), I’d be interested. Thanks!
Sadly that’s exactly the kind of response this Creationist propaganda film’s makers hoped for. This was the film equivalent of the infamous “Gish Gallop” where a Creationist spews out so much nonsense in such a short time it would take dozens of hours to properly refute it all. Why don’t you pick one area you found persuasive, start a new thread on it and we’ll show you where the actual science was horribly misrepresented and the Creationist claims flat out wrong.
'Tain’t so. You can date some sedimentary rocks with diagenetic minerals. And when will you understand that the date for an igneous rock is of the age of the crystal, not the age of the nuclide?
That’s because you won’t accept evidence. Not that zircons are used much to date fossiliferous layers; zircons are so stable that they can go through multiple rounds of deposition and such. Why a zircon, specifically?
One does not simply “correct an error” in another researcher’s work. If the work genuinely is in error, you must either provide independent evidence (such as lab notes or instrument recalibration records) to confirm this to be the case, or else you must throw out the data and re-do the experiment.
“Correcting an error” in another researcher’s work, without providing any independent evidence to demonstrate that it really is in error, is by definition fudging.
That is how it works in every area of science. It is called “quality control.”