Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

[dad]

Get serious the research is over the past several hundred years. The objective verifiable evidence is the uniformity of the lamela for hundreds of thousands of years, with no other explanation presented based on the evidence.

Still waiting . . .

The only explanation you believe in involves a uniform nature. You have no reasons or offer no evidence. The resemblance of layers does not mean they were laid down in the same nature!

 

[dad]

Counting annual uniform lamela over a period of over 400,000 years,

I already showed how under a different former nature we could have millions of layers! The 400,000 you cite does not add up to 2 million years, so how is that 2 million year claim in your link dated? Simple question. You claimed it was not radioactive decay dating. So...let's see what it is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only explanation you believe in involves a uniform nature. You have no reasons or offer no evidence. The resemblance of layers does not mean they were laid down in the same nature!

What are you talking about? Evidence was already given to you.

You once again demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already showed how under a different former nature we could have millions of layers! The 400,000 you cite does not add up to 2 million years, so how is that 2 million year claim in your link dated? Simple question. You claimed it was not radioactive decay dating. So...let's see what it is?

No, you only waved your hands and spouted nonsense. Too bad that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Since you don't have clue about evidence you cannot even support your wild claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course there is even a longer record for just one layer, and please note this is only one formation out of many. That means this is a very very low value for the minimum age of the Earth.

The Green River Formation has a continuous record of 6 million years.

Time for dad to deny reality and crawl back into his fishbowl:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

 

[sayak83]

Not sure how to break it to you, but no one cares about what you think is preferred or not. The only thing that matters is if you have solid and real evidence for what you claim as part of science! By the way, Occam believed in creation and God. That razor is two edged.

The one who believes it was the same, and uses that belief in models of science about the past has the burden of proof to find the evidence that they were the same.

You obviously cannot do so, so you flail around desperately trying to get out of having to support your beliefs and so called science basis. You will not be wiggling out of it, so get used to wearing it.

Nice dodge. Its pointless talking to you.

 

[dad]

Nice dodge. Its pointless talking to you.

The only dodge is you failing to address the elephant in the room. That would be to man up and solidly prove or at least evidence the same nature in the past USED in models of the past by science.

 

[dad]

I see someone mentioned 6 million layers. In post 14 in this thread I calculated about 7.5 million in a young earth scenario.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see someone mentioned 6 million layers. In post 14 in this thread I calculated about 7.5 million in a young earth scenario.

The only problem for you is that that is only one of hundreds if not thousands of layers. Even if you multiplied your number by 100 you would be too low.


Perhaps you should learn what evidence is.

 

[shunyadragon]

I already showed how under a different former nature we could have millions of layers! The 400,000 you cite does not add up to 2 million years, so how is that 2 million year claim in your link dated? Simple question. You claimed it was not radioactive decay dating. So...let's see what it is?

No you did not, because you did not provide any scientific reference that supports your description how they formed, It is simply based on the assumption of a literal Biblical Creation,

My reference claimed over ~480,000 years based on the very accurate lamela record, There are deeper lamela that has been tectonically altered and shifted, and distorted that indicates a lamela history that is a million or two older from different sources, I refer to the greater than 400,000 years lamela record, actually ~480,000, because it can be accurately and specifically dated.

If you read the articles you would understand this.

 

[shunyadragon]

The only explanation you believe in involves a uniform nature. You have no reasons or offer no evidence. The resemblance of layers does not mean they were laid down in the same nature!

You reject uniformity of nature of the natural processes over time based on a literal Biblical agenda not science.

Still waiting for the scientific references to support your assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

I see someone mentioned 6 million layers. In post 14 in this thread I calculated about 7.5 million in a young earth scenario.

Someone mentioned???? Post #14 is yours, and confusing post at that misrepresenting science. Reference please concerning the lake lamela, but yes world wide the sedimentary layers document billions of years of documented record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone???? Reference please concerning the lake lamela, but yes world wide the sedimentary layers document billions of years of documented record.

I was the someone. I linked a Wiki article on the Green River Formation. Another ancient lakebed with six million years of continual deposition.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was the someone. I linked a Wiki article on the Green River Formation. Another ancient lakebed with six million years of continual deposition.

True in the initial post concerning lake deposits I referred to the fact that there are many examples of vast lake deposits in the geologic strata documenting millions of years of lamela deposits. Thank you for the reference.

 

[dad]

No you did not, because you did not provide any scientific reference that supports you description how they formed, It is simply based on the assumption of a literal Biblical Creation,

There IS no scientific evidence either way. There is layers and evidences that are interpreted BY beliefs. The evidence of written records agrees with me in the ages and nature of the past. Nothing agrees with you, except your inbred beliefs.

Do you think anyone checked the 900 meter (or whatever length) little core from under a lake for truly uniform layers?? Ha. Do you think that when our present nature came into place that tree rings, for example suddenly no longer existed, or that we should have some giant red or blue gap between rings that year, or that anyone ever really checked?? Do you think that layers were no longer being deposited in many areas all of a sudden? No. All we would see is that the new nature would result in a new process or way or timing that layers were made. In much the same way, people were alive back then. (what science claims was 65 million years ago or so) But in the former nature we read that they lived about a thousand years! The also probably returned to dust too fast to be able to leave fossil remains. So after the nayure change, in the days of Peleg, we see man only started to live about 230 years. Then it leveled off over centuries to modern life spans.

My reference claimed over ~480,000 years based on the very accurate lamela record,

I am glad it is accurate because the last several posts you claimed 440,000 (or was it 400,00?)! Ha. It is still easily explainable also in a different past nature.

There are deeper lamela that has been tectonically altered and shifted,

Great. So??

and distorted that indicates a lamela history that is a million or two older from different sources,

Are you saying there are an additional 1.6 million layers under there? Be clear on HOW this is dated.

I refer to the greater than 400,000 years lamela record, actually ~480,000, because it can be accurately and specifically dated.

False. It is religiously assumed that the layers all represent ones laid down as we see them now laid down in this nature. That is not 'dated'. That is religious delusional dreaming.

 

[dad]

You reject uniformity of nature of the natural processes over time based on a literal Biblical agenda not science.

Still waiting for the scientific references to support your assertions.

You reject the actual record of the past in favor of unsupportable beliefs. Seemingly because you have some vendetta against the truth.

 

[dad]

Someone mentioned???? Post #14 is yours, and confusing post at that misrepresenting science. Reference please concerning the lake lamela, but yes world wide the sedimentary layers document billions of years of documented record.

Right, SZ mentions another formation with 6 million layers. Post 14 is mine where it points out even 7.5 million is no problemo.

 

[shunyadragon]

There IS no scientific evidence either way. There is layers and evidences that are interpreted BY beliefs. The evidence of written records agrees with me in the ages and nature of the past. Nothing agrees with you, except your inbred beliefs.

Do you think anyone checked the 900 meter (or whatever length) little core from under a lake for truly uniform layers?? Ha. Do you think that when our present nature came into place that tree rings, for example suddenly no longer existed, or that we should have some giant red or blue gap between rings that year, or that anyone ever really checked?? Do you think that layers were no longer being deposited in many areas all of a sudden? No. All we would see is that the new nature would result in a new process or way or timing that layers were made. In much the same way, people were alive back then. (what science claims was 65 million years ago or so) But in the former nature we read that they lived about a thousand years! The also probably returned to dust too fast to be able to leave fossil remains. So after the nayure change, in the days of Peleg, we see man only started to live about 230 years. Then it leveled off over centuries to modern life spans.
I am glad it is accurate because the last several posts you claimed 440,000 (or was it 400,00?)! Ha. It is still easily explainable also in a different past nature.

Great. So??

Are you saying there are an additional 1.6 million layers under there? Be clear on HOW this is dated.
False. It is religiously assumed that the layers all represent ones laid down as we see them now laid down in this nature. That is not 'dated'. That is religious delusional dreaming.

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Right, SZ mentions another formation with 6 million layers. Post 14 is mine where it points out even 7.5 million is no problemo.

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[dad]

This sums up your rejection of science based on a faith based scenario based on a literal interpretation of ancient scripture without provenance. By the way science does not prove anything, fortunately. Science falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence.

Yes, the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates there is only one way lamela can form based on direct observation. Simply if you can present a hypothesis based on your scenario that can be supported by science you would have an alternative way they could form. but so far you have only presented an unsupported bizarre assertion with no evidence.

Still waiting . . .

Your bizarre same state past belief has no evidence. It is silly to mention how layers now form when talking about the past unless you first prove that a same nature existed. You failed.