CrowCross claims YE paleontologists have proved old Earth wrong

[The Pixie]

CrowCross said this, and I thought I would do the ferengi thing and start a new thread where I demand evidence for it.

Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error.

Unlike ferengi, I will say from the start that in this thread links will be considered to be evidence - or more specifically the evidence in the linked article will be given due consideration.

Now as feregi herself would say

• Evidence?
• When will she present the evidence for this?
• PROVE THE CLAIM
• ...etc. ad nauseam

 

[CrowCross]

CrowCross said this, and I thought I would do the ferengi thing and start a new thread where I demand evidence for it.


Unlike ferengi, I will say from the start that in this thread links will be considered to be evidence - or more specifically the evidence in the linked article will be given due consideration.

Now as feregi herself would say

• Evidence?
• When will she present the evidence for this?
• PROVE THE CLAIM
• ...etc. ad nauseam

The Opining Pixie has been asked several times....how does an assembly line of organelle evolve using mutations and random chance?

 

[CrowCross]

CrowCross said this, and I thought I would do the ferengi thing and start a new thread where I demand evidence for it.


Unlike ferengi, I will say from the start that in this thread links will be considered to be evidence - or more specifically the evidence in the linked article will be given due consideration.

Now as feregi herself would say

• Evidence?
• When will she present the evidence for this?
• PROVE THE CLAIM
• ...etc. ad nauseam

Considering you don't have the ability to tell us how assembly lines of organelle evolved...yet claim they do along with all of the other evo-babblers...

Perhaps you would like to explain polystrate fossils which clearly show that sediment forming strata didn't require millions of years to accumulate around an object.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why some fossils contain biomaterial which if actually is older than 65+MY's didn't decompose or fossilize?

Perhaps you would like to tell us what the half life of the earths magnetic field is ? We can measure the magnetic field of the earth...now...and with some math we can calculate what it would have been 25 thousand years ago. Take some time, do the math and tell me why such a strong field would not be a problem.

Perhaps you know something about some of the samples of lava that have been collected...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.

My prediction...the Opining Pixie...will do just that.

 

[TeabagSalad]

The Opining Pixie has been asked several times....how does an assembly line of organelle evolve using mutations and random chance?

And it has been explained to you, several times, that evolution is not random due to natural selection.

Why do you keep forgetting the basics? Is it because you are having difficulties learning, or are you doing it deliberately.

Now that we have dealt with your attempt to change the subject, can we get back to you backing up your claim with evidence?

 

[CrowCross]

And it has been explained to you, several times, that evolution is not random due to natural selection.

Why do you keep forgetting the basics? Is it because you are having difficulties learning, or are you doing it deliberately.

Now that we have dealt with your attempt to change the subject, can we get back to you backing up your claim with evidence?

So, what I hear you saying is that the mutations are pinpointed and occur in the exact place of DNA at the exact time...always causing a beneficial change...that is naturally selected? Mutations that the evo-minded say drive evolutionism is not random?

 

[TeabagSalad]

Considering you don't have the ability to tell us how assembly lines of organelle evolved...yet claim they do along with all of the other evo-babblers...

Perhaps you would like to explain polystrate fossils which clearly show that sediment forming strata didn't require millions of years to accumulate around an object.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why some fossils contain biomaterial which if actually is older than 65+MY's didn't decompose or fossilize?

Perhaps you would like to tell us what the half life of the earths magnetic field is ? We can measure the magnetic field of the earth...now...and with some math we can calculate what it would have been 25 thousand years ago. Take some time, do the math and tell me why such a strong field would not be a problem.

Perhaps you know something about some of the samples of lava that have been collected...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.

My prediction...the Opining Pixie...will do just that.

Oh wow! You really are doubling down on dishonesty, aren't you? Within two posts you have managed to show you can't back up your claims with any evidence, instead you have just attempted to change the subject.

You can't back up your claims that Old Earth chronology has be shown to be wrong. Why not say that rather than making yourself look even more dishonest?

 

[CrowCross]

Oh wow! You really are doubling down on dishonesty, aren't you? Within two posts you have managed to show you can't back up your claims with any evidence, instead you have just attempted to change the subject.

You can't back up your claims that Old Earth chronology has be shown to be wrong. Why not say that rather than making yourself look even more dishonest?

Huh???

I posted 4 instances that show the earth isn't old. What I see you doing is now running from the issue with your Teabag tail between your legs.

 

[TeabagSalad]

So, what I hear you saying is that the mutations are pinpointed and occur in the exact place of DNA at the exact time...always causing a beneficial change...that is naturally selected? Mutations that the evo-minded say drive evolutionism is not random?

Not saying that at all. That's you failing to understand even the basics of evolution.

Now, back to the point of the OP, can you provide actual evidence that Old Earth Chronology has been shown to be wrong?

 

[TeabagSalad]

Huh???

I posted 4 instances that show the earth isn't old. What I see you doing is now running from the issue with your Teabag tail between your legs.

What you actually posted was four examples of creationist nonsense. Anyone with a basic understanding of science can see that these are dishonest attempts to misrepresent the actual facts in an attempt to dupe people into believing their nonsense...and probably get some money out of you.

Whoever told you those four points is trying to take advantage of you by lying to you about science.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Huh???

I posted 4 instances that show the earth isn't old. What I see you doing is now running from the issue with your Teabag tail between your legs.

I saw 3 in the other thread: lava, biomaterial (?) in fossils, and magnetic fields.

Have you examined challenges to those ideas you're holding up? Such as this one?

Some so-called creation scientists have attempted to show that radiometric dating does not work on theoretical grounds (for example, Arndts and Overn 1981; Gill 1996) but such attempts invariably have fatal flaws (see Dalrymple 1984; York and Dalrymple 2000). Other creationists have focused on instances in which radiometric dating seems to yield incorrect results. In most instances, these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze (for example, Woodmorappe 1979; Morris HM 1985; Morris JD 1994). Only rarely does a creationist actually find an incorrect radiometric result (Austin 1996; Rugg and Austin 1998) that has not already been revealed and discussed in the scientific literature.

Source

 

[CrowCross]

Not saying that at all. That's you failing to understand even the basics of evolution.

Now, back to the point of the OP, can you provide actual evidence that Old Earth Chronology has been shown to be wrong?

So, you're saying mutations are not random? Y or N... Easy question.

 

[CrowCross]

What you actually posted was four examples of creationist nonsense. Anyone with a basic understanding of science can see that these are dishonest attempts to misrepresent the actual facts in an attempt to dupe people into believing their nonsense...and probably get some money out of you.

Whoever told you those four points is trying to take advantage of you by lying to you about science.

You still have your Teabag tail between your legs....now you're yelping.

 

[CrowCross]

I saw 3 in the other thread: lava, biomaterial (?) in fossils, and magnetic fields.

Polystrate fossils.

Have you examined challenges to those ideas you're holding up? Such as this one?

Source

"these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze"

Yeah, OK, I believe that. These guys understand the radiometric techniques very well.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Polystrate fossils.

K, thanks.

"these efforts are flawed because the authors have misunderstood or misrepresented the data they attempt to analyze"

Yeah, OK, I believe that. These guys understand the radiometric techniques very well.

That attitude is not scientific. You just can't find a scientist who agrees with your position and then claim the science part is done, nor reject some science because it disagrees with your position. You have to deal with the substance of a challenge, as well as the substance of the challenge to the challenge.

 

[CrowCross]

K, thanks.


That attitude is not scientific. You just can't find a scientist who agrees with your position and then claim the science part is done, nor reject some science because it disagrees with your position. You have to deal with the substance of a challenge, as well as the substance of the challenge to the challenge.

.....and you act as if challenge to the challenges have not done?

Come on Gus.

 

[Gus Bovona]

.....and you act as if challenge to the challenges have not done?

Come on Gus.

Can you reference those challenges so they can be examined, like I gave you the source of my challenge so you could reference it if you wanted to, and argue against it?

 

[CrowCross]

Can you reference those challenges so they can be examined, like I gave you the source of my challenge so you could reference it if you wanted to, and argue against it?

No, I'm not going to present you with a list...that would require a lot of post.

But as an example magazines such as the Creation Research Society Quarterly has been answering and producing challenges for years.

 

[mikeT]

No, I'm not going to present you with a list...that would require a lot of post.

Start with one.

 

[The Pixie]

The Opining Pixie ...

Have you just learnt the word "Opining"? You seem to be throwing it around a lot. Are you trying to suggest this is merely my unsupported opinion? Are you denying that you said "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error." Of course not. You know you said it, you just want to insinuate otherwise without actually coming out and saying it.

This is, of course, pretty normal for creationism. It hides behind a facade, it accuses by insinuation. It is pseudo-science.

The Opining Pixie has been asked several times....how does an assembly line of organelle evolve using mutations and random chance?

So you cannot back up your claim, can you?

Looks to me like YOU were opining, and now you have been challenged to support your opinion, you are keen to distract, to derail the thread.

It is a shame creationists cannot just admit their mistakes, but... It is pseudo-science.

Considering you don't have the ability to tell us how assembly lines of organelle evolved...yet claim they do along with all of the other evo-babblers...

Go on. Considering I do not have that ability, that supports your claim how exactly?

I do not recall saying I have that ability, so I really cannot see how me lacking the ability in any way supports your claim: "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error."

As I say, it is pseudo-science.

Perhaps you would like to explain polystrate fossils which clearly show that sediment forming strata didn't require millions of years to accumulate around an object.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why some fossils contain biomaterial which if actually is older than 65+MY's didn't decompose or fossilize?

Perhaps you would like to tell us what the half life of the earths magnetic field is ? We can measure the magnetic field of the earth...now...and with some math we can calculate what it would have been 25 thousand years ago. Take some time, do the math and tell me why such a strong field would not be a problem.

Perhaps you know something about some of the samples of lava that have been collected...that they know the exact dates they flowed because they were recorded in history by the eyewitness of men....and those dates are often radiometrically dated as being much, much older.

What has any of this to do with your claim "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error." Are you really going to pretend whether or not I can answer these has any impact on the truth of your statement?

Who do you think you are fooling here, CrowCross?

My prediction...the Opining Pixie...will do just that.

Thanks for the vote of confidence - I will be happy to give it a good shot. But first, I want to see the evidence for you claim: "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error."

My prediction... you will not do that.

 

[CrowCross]

Have you just learnt the word "Opining"? You seem to be throwing it around a lot. Are you trying to suggest this is merely my unsupported opinion? Are you denying that you said "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error." Of course not. You know you said it, you just want to insinuate otherwise without actually coming out and saying it.

This is, of course, pretty normal for creationism. It hides behind a facade, it accuses by insinuation. It is pseudo-science.


So you cannot back up your claim, can you?

Looks to me like YOU were opining, and now you have been challenged to support your opinion, you are keen to distract, to derail the thread.

It is a shame creationists cannot just admit their mistakes, but... It is pseudo-science.


Go on. Considering I do not have that ability, that supports your claim how exactly?

I do not recall saying I have that ability, so I really cannot see how me lacking the ability in any way supports your claim: "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error."

As I say, it is pseudo-science.


What has any of this to do with your claim "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error." Are you really going to pretend whether or not I can answer these has any impact on the truth of your statement?

Who do you think you are fooling here, CrowCross?


Thanks for the vote of confidence - I will be happy to give it a good shot. But first, I want to see the evidence for you claim: "Young earth paleontologist have demonstrated that those dates presented by OE paleontologist are in error."

My prediction... you will not do that.

LOL....you complain about me using the word opining toi describe what you do.....then post an entire responce with nothing but opinion.