If Dave is Right about Dating methods

[Jet Black]

then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing. It's just a load of completely contrived bollocks based on nothing but peoples' imagination, with widespread fraud and misreporting of results wherever you look.... All those labs, private labs whose future existance depends on their accuracy and reputation... all those big shiny pieces of metal and highly educated techs... nothing... the lot of them. But this would be really odd, since there are a load of actual geologists with young age views. peoiple like Kurt Wise and even Glenn Morton back in the day (no longer). why haven't these people got their grubby hands on any of this widespread misreporting of data and exposed it for the world to see? out of all those geologists and lab techs the world over... many of whom are inevitably going to be creationists, why aren't they crowing from the rooftops about the C14 lab that fudged the results to get the expected dates, or the professor who dumped nine out of ten results in order to find one that would get him another year's funding?

While abscence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the utter silence regarding exposure of this institutionalised fraud screams loudly.

Why is the only person who cannot see the absurdity of Dave Hawkin's claims also named Dave Hawkins?

[Ray Moscow]

JB, you're overlooking the power of the vast atheistic conspiracy against biblically compatible science! These YEC views will never get published because of anti-god prejudice.

[SteveF]

Why is the only person who cannot see the absurdity of Dave Hawkin's claims also named Dave Hawkins?

Perhaps because he is called John Woodmorrape (sort of).

[Constant Mews]

In addition, of course, to the problem that fraud or incompetence on such a massive scale is impossible to sustain. Too many other areas of science are impacted.

A point which is lost on Dave - and on creationists in general - is that science holds together, it is not a set of unrelated theories which may be selected or discarded as we choose. It is an interlocking set of explanations for what we see in the world around us. If radiometric dating is a failure - if the only factor that provides 'evolution-useful' dates is fraud, then not just radiometric dating is wrong; not just geology is wrong; but nuclear science in general must be wrong. Nuclear power plants cannot be functioning; cosmology and astronomy must be wrong; the use of isotopes in cancer treatment and medical research must also be part to the fraud.

Science, unlike faith, interconnects. Dave isn't simply accusing the radiometric labs of fraud - he is declaring that science as a whole is sustained only by lies, fraud, and incompetence.

I recall a particularly heinous professor who demanded the derivation of Kepler's Laws from the Dirac wave equations. Such is science. It all connects.

[Jet Black]

Why is the only person who cannot see the absurdity of Dave Hawkin's claims also named Dave Hawkins?

Perhaps because he is called John Woodmorrape (sort of).

hell, I thought he was called Peczkis.... but then he might also be called Morris. I bet there is only one creationist and all the rest are just stock photos.

[Mike PSS]

A mighty chunk of physics would be in the trashbin too. And chemistry.

[Ray Moscow]

A mighty chunk of physics would be in the trashbin too. And chemistry.

I wasn't kidding about Dave needing to revisit freshman chemistry. Either he paid no attention in class, or he just decided it's a bunch of erroneous crap.

Hey, this sort of thing happens. I have a friend who, after studying modern biblical scholarship in seminary and grad school for years, just gave it up and lapsed back into fundamentalism because he decided that "either he believed Jesus, or he didn't". Since then, every idea he encounters has to be run through his fundie-worldview filter to see whether it is compatible.

But then, he doesn't post on science-oriented sites to accuse scientists of fraud and incompetence, either.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

A mighty chunk of physics would be in the trashbin too. And chemistry.

Dave Matson in How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html#F) sums it up well:

Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.

Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.

This is quite expected, given the creationist paradigm:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif

[ericmurphy]

In addition, of course, to the problem that fraud or incompetence on such a massive scale is impossible to sustain. Too many other areas of science are impacted.

A point which is lost on Dave - and on creationists in general - is that science holds together, it is not a set of unrelated theories which may be selected or discarded as we choose. It is an interlocking set of explanations for what we see in the world around us. If radiometric dating is a failure - if the only factor that provides 'evolution-useful' dates is fraud, then not just radiometric dating is wrong; not just geology is wrong; but nuclear science in general must be wrong. Nuclear power plants cannot be functioning; cosmology and astronomy must be wrong; the use of isotopes in cancer treatment and medical research must also be part to the fraud.

I.e.—and this is the important part, Dave—

Consilience.

It's all consilient, Dave. The problem with your young-age "hypothesis" is that it breaks virtually all of that consilience. The size and age of the universe. The stability (or lack thereof) of various atomic nuclei. The size and temperature of the earth. Biodiversity. Relative cosmic abundance of chemical elements. They all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

You can't look at all these little details in isolation, Dave. That's what you prefer to do. You want to look at a particular pMC value for a particular layer in a particular lake-bed, to the exclusion of the rest of the universe. You want to look at a particular Ar-Ar date for a particular fragment of rock from a particular stratum, to the exclusion of the rest of the universe. You don't want to look at all the radiocarbon calibration curves together; you want to look at each one independently and to the exclusion of the rest of the universe. The problem is, when you look at reality like that, you miss the

Consilience

that is to everyone else blindingly obvious, and eliminates the last, tiniest sliver of a possibility that young-earth creationism could be correct.

[ninewands]

Maybe Dave, the super-successful businessman and Air Force trainer-jock and sometimes bomber simulator pilot needs to be reminded that "consilience" and "reconcile" (as in "the accountants reconciled the books") have the exact same Latin root word. "Make it agree."

Just as the books must be reconciled to make them internally consistent (or there'll be hell to pay at tax time), data in science must be consilient in order to be accepted at face value. If it is NOT consilient, then some explanation for why it is not MUST be found ... and that explanation has to be consilient with the rest of the universe. It can't just be something you grabbed off an AiG or ICR web page.

[umop apisdn w,I]

then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing. It's just a load of completely contrived bollocks based on nothing but peoples' imagination, with widespread fraud and misreporting of results wherever you look....

Yes, but to be fair: If you are right about dating methods then the whole of Creationism is a massive fucking nothing. It's just a load of completely contrived bollocks based on nothing but peoples' imagination, with widespread fraud and misreporting of results wherever you look...

It's one or the other. And come on - are you seriously expecting the average "Bible Believing Christian" to think it more likely that other "Bible Believing Christians" are fraudsters or that amoral (and possibly even Satanic) atheists are fraudsters?

[Dave Hawkins]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

[deadman_932]

JB: You DO realize that AFDave is going to spin your post as being some ethereal admiring ode to Dave's incisive and probing mind....right?

I swear, the guy dons double knee pads when talking about you. And he...lord help him, PLEASE!...He's dull enough to think you fall for it.
Edit: Hah, speak of the devil.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?

[Dave Hawkins]

I just have to rant about this one more time here ...

Think of how much progress we could make in so many productive areas of science--and there are many--if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted on speculations about historical geology! Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well.

[VoxRat]

...
1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata....O RLY?

And you know this... how?

Don't tell me: from your extensive training and reading in geology, right?

[deadman_932]

I like Dave's list of things geology is good for.

It says a lot. "Avoiding collision with asteroids" is my favorite.

[Dave Hawkins]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?This is a nonsensical question. Try again please.

[deadman_932]

A YEC shrieked: "Think of how much progress we could make in so many productive areas of science--and there are many--if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted on speculations about historical geology! Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well."

Not to mention AF simulator-jockeys pretending to know science. They're a hoot, too....massive waste.

[Dave Hawkins]

Voxrat ... You'd be so much more interesting if you would stop singing your same old tired song.

[Dave Hawkins]

Did Deadman just admit that I am brilliant? A moment of weakness I'm sure.

[deadman_932]

Dave, you'd be less petulant if you didn't stamp your foot so.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?This is a nonsensical question. Try again please.
Evasion noted. Please try again.


Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?

[deadman_932]

Wow...Dave read...my whole post above...as... a compliment.

Now I know he has cognitive issues. Let's see...I repost Dave saying this:

"if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted ...Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well."

and I follow it with :

"Not to mention AF simulator-jockeys pretending to know science. They're a hoot, too....massive waste."
And A YEC says "Aha! you think simulator-jockeys are brilliant!" Man, that's some density.

[VoxRat]

Voxrat ... You'd be so much more interesting if you would stop singing your same old tired song.I take it that means you're not going to answer my question?

Surprise!

ETA:
And if you think I'm going to stop pointing out that you have absolutely no basis for pontificating on matters on which you have absolutely no background, on which you've never so much as cracked an introductory textbook, because you try to pretend it's beside the point, I guess even you have figured out by now that's not going to happen.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I just have to rant about this one more time here ...

Think of how much progress we could make in so many productive areas of science--and there are many--if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted on speculations about historical geology! Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well.
I wonder how much AIDS research could have been done using the $30 million wasted on Ken Ham's YEC Museum folly.

What do you think Dave?

[deadman_932]

I bet he says you just claimed Ken Ham is BRILLIANT!

[Obd]

Well first of all Dave would need to explicitely state what exactly is wrong with the dating methods other than that he doesn't like the outcome. This means that there must be some aspect of geology or physics that isn't right. Note that once again we have the issue of consilience, in the recent topics this is the consilience of for instance K-Ar dating with fission track dating.

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust

Gee, I wonder how that process works. Wouldn't have anything to do with knowing where to look based on say looking in certain strata, which relies on such key notions as superposition, etcetera.


2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities

Uh oh, you're not implying that plate tectonics actually works the way geologists seem to think it works right?


3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)

You don't say.


4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes

And these vulcanoes are what, independent geological features that do not have anything to do with underlying geological principles such as, here we go again, plate tectonics?


None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

You see Dave, these things do not directly have anything to do with 'the age of the earth', but they are based on exactly the same principles that are used to determine the age of the earth. Now since you somehow want to reject the methods of determining the age of the earth, you'll have to reject one or more of the crucial principles involved. This in turn has implications for these so called 'useful applications of geology'.

So tell us, what exactly is wrong with dating method. What are those principles that are flawed, how come we apparently still see consilience and when you're done, let's move on to cosmology and all the clues it provides for an 'old earth'.

[jupiter]

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?

[espritch]

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?


It's really quite simple, Dave. The purpose of science is to understand the true nature of the universe. If science produces results that have useful applications and make our lives easier, that is purely a side effect and has nothing to do with the fundamental goal of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Or for, as Richard Feynman put it, "the joy of finding things out."

Since you have your Bible and think it tells you everything you need to know, you cannot imagine that people might actually pursue knowledge for it's own sake. But that says a lot more about the navel gazing and lack of imagination inherent in your world view than it does about any failings of science.

[RAFH]

I just have to rant about this one more time here ...

Think of how much progress we could make in so many productive areas of science--and there are many--if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted on speculations about historical geology! Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well.

Not to mention all of the resources that go into supporting and maintaining the xian and other Abrahamic religions. Just think of moneys involved in the land, buildings, staff, etc. Why the Catholic Church alone is worth trillions. And all for what? To reassure folks they aren't really going to die. No, just go to hell because there really isn't room for them all at the inn in the sky. Says so right in the babble, depending of course which one you favor.

My, my, we could have so much progress if people just lived in the here and now, wouldn't we?

[Febble]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?

[RAFH]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?This is a nonsensical question. Try again please.

Why is it nonsensical?

Or is this another of your unsupported assertions?

Explain yourself!

[Constant Mews]

Well first of all Dave would need to explicitely state what exactly is wrong with the dating methods other than that he doesn't like the outcome. This means that there must be some aspect of geology or physics that isn't right. Note that once again we have the issue of consilience, in the recent topics this is the consilience of for instance K-Ar dating with fission track dating.

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust

Gee, I wonder how that process works. Wouldn't have anything to do with knowing where to look based on say looking in certain strata, which relies on such key notions as superposition, etcetera.


2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities

Uh oh, you're not implying that plate tectonics actually works the way geologists seem to think it works right?



You don't say.


4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes

And these vulcanoes are what, independent geological features that do not have anything to do with underlying geological principles such as, here we go again, plate tectonics?


None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

You see Dave, these things do not directly have anything to do with 'the age of the earth', but they are based on exactly the same principles that are used to determine the age of the earth. Now since you somehow want to reject the methods of determining the age of the earth, you'll have to reject one or more of the crucial principles involved. This in turn has implications for these so called 'useful applications of geology'.

So tell us, what exactly is wrong with dating method. What are those principles that are flawed, how come we apparently still see consilience and when you're done, let's move on to cosmology and all the clues it provides for an 'old earth'.

More than being based on the same analytical techniques, these disciplines require that, for example, radioactive half-lives not change drastically over the course of history. They require, as you note, accurate understanding of plate tectonics - something no creationist has ever displayed.

It's not simply the techniques - it's the interconnected nature of the theories of science that is the inarguable death-knell for Dave and his fellow creationist-apes.

[espritch]

It's really quite simple, Dave. The purpose of science is to understand the true nature of the universe. If science produces results that have useful applications and make our lives easier, that is purely a side effect and has nothing to do with the fundamental goal of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Or for, as Richard Feynman put it, "the joy of finding things out."

Since you have your Bible and think it tells you everything you need to know, you cannot imagine that people might actually pursue knowledge for it's own sake. But that says a lot more about the navel gazing and lack of imagination inherent in your world view than it does about any failings of science.

It occurs to me that maybe this is precisely the root of the problem most fundamentalists have with science; they don't get any joy out of finding things out because everything they find out is in direct conflict with their world view and causes painful cognitive dissonance.

[Constant Mews]

Did Deadman just admit that I am brilliant? A moment of weakness I'm sure.
No, actually he pointed out that you are a fool; but you were too foolish to understand that you had been insulted.

Eric, how can you maintain that Dave is at all intelligent in the light of not being linguistically adept enough to recognize insults?

[Wolfhound]

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?Febble, he trotted out some AiG nonsense about "rapidly formed oil and coal" on other boards so, yes, he really DOES believe that the age of the earth and age of its strata has nothing to do with finding oil and minerals in its crust. I shit you not.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?Febble, he trotted out some AiG nonsense about "rapidly formed oil and coal" on other boards so, yes, he really DOES believe that the age of the earth and age of its strata has nothing to do with finding oil and minerals in its crust. I shit you not.
Dave was also challenged on the 'other board' to come up with ANY example of a company that uses the YEC paradigm as the basis for a successful business case.* You can imagine how fast and far he ran from that one.


*not including YEC conmen like Ham and Hovind making money off the illiterate sheep

[Wolfhound]

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?Febble, he trotted out some AiG nonsense about "rapidly formed oil and coal" on other boards so, yes, he really DOES believe that the age of the earth and age of its strata has nothing to do with finding oil and minerals in its crust. I shit you not.
Dave was also challenged on the 'other board' to come up with ANY example of a company that uses the YEC paradigm as the basis for a successful business case.* You can imagine how fast and far he ran from that one.


*not including YEC conmen like Ham and Hovind making money off the illiterate sheepWell, there IS that YEC crackpot looking for oil in Israel using "Biblical principles", remember? http://www.rense.com/general64/sbsi.htm Oh. Wait. You said successful. Nevermind. Carry on.

[Faid]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)Dave, you have basically thrown away the whole field of Geology when you claimed that its LAWS (like the Law of Superposition), and the evaluation of ALL its available data, constitute nothing but "BIAS".

What's left, dave?

[Faid]

I like Dave's list of things geology is good for.

It says a lot. "Avoiding collision with asteroids" is my favorite.Maybe Geology can help us discover Earth's Brakes, to use them in a time of need...

[Faid]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?He is serious. He's also Oblivious.

[Occam's Aftershave]

I like Dave's list of things geology is good for.

It says a lot. "Avoiding collision with asteroids" is my favorite.Maybe Geology can help us discover Earth's Brakes, to use them in a time of need...
Or at least help us figure out how to make the Earth "tip over" on its axis a la Wally Wonderpants, so the asteroid could hit an uninhabited area. :rolleyes:

[Constant Mews]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?This is a nonsensical question. Try again please.

Why is it nonsensical?

Or is this another of your unsupported assertions?

Explain yourself!

I believe Dave has shown before this peculiar pragmatism, and it is one shared by many creationists: unless some aspect of science has a direct impact on their or their families' well-being, they consider money spent on it wasted. It is a wholly selfish attitude, rather than a Christian one, but then, it's rather difficult to see creationists as other than selfish.

[Constant Mews]

Dave, you really have jumped the shark here:

"Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust" has nothing "to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata"?

You can not be serious.

Can you?Febble, he trotted out some AiG nonsense about "rapidly formed oil and coal" on other boards so, yes, he really DOES believe that the age of the earth and age of its strata has nothing to do with finding oil and minerals in its crust. I shit you not.
Ah, but the speed of formation doesn't change the problem of finding it. That's why Glenn Morton is no longer a YEC creationist. Stratigraphy and the earth's age are indispensable to the economics of finding oil.

[jupiter]

Please note the previously posted link:

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?

[RAFH]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?
Boyo! YOu really stepped in it this time didn't you davey. Science is not about practical applications. It's about understanding the reality we live in, which does indeed have practical applications. If we know within a reasonable certainty what a particular set of circumstances are likely to lead to, we can then take advantage of that knowledge to plan our lives, make decisions about what we should do, what we can do. We can avoid nasty consequences, we can nip problems in the bud. We can not use toxins that will someday kill our children or import some plant from India that, while quite handsome and easy to grow, will become a pest and choke the indigenous flora out of our environs, which will likely have a bad effect upon the fauna, and being we are one of the fauna, might be of interest to us.

But beyond that, let's look at your apparent criteria for why something is of value: "What are the practical applications of _________?" That's taken from right above here, I've underlined it for your ease of reference. So then, davey, if practical application is the criteria, would you mind explaining to all us what the practical applications are of believing in your Obsessive Literal Interpretation of a Bronze Age Myth (OLIBAM)? I mean, really. What practical advantages has it produced? Please name them. And don't just rattle off a list of stuff, explain why and how each and everyone of them is a practical advantage extending from a belief in your OLIBAM. Go ahead, we are all waiting.

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust

Yes, this is a practical advantage stemming from geology and yes it is related to the use of the standard geological model of the Earth which includes that 4.55 byo age. For one thing, that gives the requisite times needed to build up all those different formations, like chalk, limestone, clays, all those sedimentary layers which are what trapped those oils in the first place. And there is the time necessary for generating all that hydrocarbon mass from living processes. The understanding of the age of the Earth is necessary to know what those strata mean, and why there would be oil or minerals in certain places and not others. There is nothing in your YEC paradigm that yields such knowledge, nothing at all. Or do you claim there is? If so, quote chapter and verse where your babble myth indicates where there would be mineral deposits. Go ahead davey, produce your evidence. And just like above, don't just say such and such verse, chapter whatever, explain exactly how that verse indicates the location of those minerals.

2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities

Yes, this in another fine practical advantage of the standard geological model that includes the 4.55 byo age of the Earth. That age is a critical component of Tectonic Theory upon which nearly all seismic knowledge is now based. Yes, before the acceptance of Tectonic Theory, people knew about earthquakes and could identify faults, but they did not understand what caused the earthquakes, which then spreads to what caused the various orogenies and downcasts, grabens and mountains, even where volcanoes are and why. That age is intrinsically linked to the rest of geology and indeed, all sciences because as others have noted, it is one big interlocking puzzle. An anomaly in one branch could well be the answer to a question in another branch. It's that favorite word of yours davey of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all), consilience. It is all interelated, what happens in physics affects astronomy which in turn affects biology which in turn affects geology which in turn affect meteorology which in turn affect some other aspect of science. One part of reality can not confuse another because reality is consistent. At least that is one of our basic assumptions, one without which we could not do science. We'd be back to praying to gods and demons to make things happen and you've seen the success that had up until the last couple of hundred years.

3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)

Not an issue so much for geology though astroblemes do have a significant part in geology, they explain many things in the standard geological model, for one thing, those big holes in the ground or sometimes just what's left of them. And those holes and remains also point to a 4.55 bya age of the Earth, because if they had all occurred within the timespan YECers maintain, there wouldn't be any human race, probably not much of any life here. You must have seen what happened to Jupiter when Levy-Shoemaker 9 smacked into it. Each of those fireballs was the size of Earth. Image each of those hitting Earth. And those weren't particularly large fragments as fragments go, certainly not the size of the bit that made Vredefort. In fact, we owe our moon to a major impact event, which also probably gave us our axial tilt, which is really important for our meteorology and most aspects of life on this planet. Certainly a major effect. And all of that doesn[t make much sense without the age of 4.55 bya. It's part and parcel of the whole model. Take that away, and there is no moon, or at the very least, the planet is still nearly molten from the event and if there is an ocean, the tides are enormous due to the moon's close proximity of just 80,000 kilometers or so. It took time for the moon to ease out to its current orbital distance. A lot of time.

4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes


Yes, another nice side effect of geology, quite handy though most people could easily figure that one out by just looking around and seeing if there were volcanoes about. If you see them or the telltale signs of them about, it's a good chance there'll be another event. And yes, again, it's all tied into the standard geological model with its standard component of a 4.55 bya age of the Earth. Take the volcanoes of the islands I live on. Just Mauna Loa consists of over 75,000 cubic kilometers of erupted materials, not counting what was eroded away. We know the approximate flow rates of the materials coming up those main vents, and it would take millions of years to produce that much stuff. That doesn't even consider the obvious trail of volcanoes leading all the way across the Pacific to the Aleutian Trench. Those volcanoes get older as as one starts at Big Island and moves NW. Plus the ages of the materials coming out also have a trend of getting older. There are dozens of such island chains around the world. Even Yellowstone is the result of a hotspot, the Snake River Valley is it's tail. So, yeah, the age of the Earth is a major issue with regard to volcanoes. It explains the origin of atolls, as hypothesized by Darwin, that was one of the keys to the concept of the age of the Earth that made his other, more famous, hypothesis, evolution, possible.

5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil

Yes, again. And yes, again, the various soil types are directly related to the ancient age of the Earth, How do you get soils? Well, they didn't just happen. They had to erode out of rocks and mix with the detritus of plants and animals. That takes an enormous amount of time. First you have to erode all those rocks, have you seen how fast rock erodes davey? It's generally a very slow process, nearly invisible to humans it's so slow. Look at the rocks at Stonehenge, they've been standing there for 4000 to 5000 years and they haven't change much at all. Not visibly at least. Same with the mountains everywhere, they do not change much of the years. So it takes a very long time to erode them down and we have evidence there have been numerous mountains that have been pushed up and eroded down and another pushed again and eroded down and then a third and even a fourth that have done the same. How do you think that 15 miles thick bed of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico came about. It sure as hell didn't have in one big flood. They can tell that by the various layers, the strata. Besides, have you ever seen a really great flood, one that has moved literally cubic kilometers of material? Probably not, but think of less intense events and the sort of damage they do. They sure as hell don't result in the sort of huge flat valley that is the Mississippi Valley, davey. If there were 15 miles of sediments eroded out of that valley in one year it would be a massive V-shaped gorge. It's not. Indeed, there would be shorelines all down the western slopes of the Appalachians. There are not. There none of the signs one would expect of an recent gigantic flood.

6) Trying to maintain the soil we have


Yeah, that's a benefit of geology and truthfully, this one item doesn't really depend upon or relate to the great age of the earth, except as to how those soils were created and deposited in the first place.

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.
Wrong. See above. You don't think so because you are so uneducated about the subject and you are so self-imposed ignorant about it as well.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Well, you davey, it wouldn't help at all because you have chosen to be ignorant. You have chosen to go with the STOOPID. You have chosen FUNDAMENTIA over knowledge. And here in these last few statements of yours is a basic misunderstanding. You believe in things, primarily an obsessive literal interpretation of a Bronze Age myth. Where as the rest of us don't believe in geology, we know it. We have studied the standard geological model in comportment with the overall standard scientific model and we have found it is the best representation of reality to date. It is as accurate and reliable description of the reality we live in that we have been able to devise. That's not to say it is an exact representation of reality, but it is pretty good and getting better all the time. We don't believe in it, we accept it on the basis that is makes sense and when we test it against reality, it does a pretty good job of explaining it. Not perfect, that will be quite a while down the road but pretty good considering what we have to work with.

And that's the difference, you believe in an interpretation of what some people wrote down some 2500 to 3000 years ago of their oral traditions from a 1000 years or so before that. People who didn't know what the sun was, nor what stars were, nor that the earth orbited the sun nor that it was a roughly spherical shape nor much about oil or why it was where it was or where it came from nor why there were minerals or what they were or why they could be found here and not there nor what earthquakes were nor why they occurred and why here and not there and now and not then nor what volcanoes were nor why they occurred nor why they occurred here and not there nor why now and not then nor what soil was and how it formed and why it was there and not here nor why they should farm one way and not another nor a great many other things, all of which are left completely out of your precious book. They didn't know what caused disease or birth defects nor what the weather was nor why it occurred. Basically they were almost completely ignorant about almost everything. Which is one reason they kept getting invaded and conquered.

You believe and I know. I know because I can read about it in detail from a great many different view points and it makes sense, it is internally consistent, it is consilient. And if I so choose, I can go and do the bloody experiments myself and decide if I want that part in my bit of knowledge or not. Who knows, maybe I will get a Nobel for adding to the sum of knowledge. And that's another difference between you and us, davey, you have a black and white world of knowledge spelled out by an interpretation of a Bronze Age myth, most of which has little or, more often, nothing to do with science. Most of your knowledge is made up. Ours is based upon previous knowledge that has stood up to testing and validation, to rigorous investigation and review. It is based on what our senses can inform of us, yes, that includes the extensions of our senses with xrays and radio waves and telescopes and microscopes and the whole range of technology, but in the end, it is our senses that we receive the data with and our minds that we process it with. It is all empirical. It is all repeatable. If I claim I experienced something, that a rock falls if I hold it out and let it go. That is something anybody else can try themselves and see I am describing it correctly. I can even measure how fast it falls and from timing a number of drops of different sizes of rock over different heights I can deduce from the data collected that the rock accelerates as it falls, meaning that it is subject to a force and it is not dependent on the size of the rock or what kind of rock it is. And I can see that the acceleration is constant and deduce the force is constant. And I can report all this and you or anyone can repeat my work and verify it. But your knowledge isn't like that. I can't reproduce it. I can't reproduce the knowledge in your precious book either. Those are experiences that happened to those people, not me. They can only tell me about it. I can't experience them myself. So you have to believe. I do not. I can know, at least as far as I can trust my senses and as noted previously, if I can trust those, I can't trust anything.

[RAFH]

It's really quite simple, Dave. The purpose of science is to understand the true nature of the universe. If science produces results that have useful applications and make our lives easier, that is purely a side effect and has nothing to do with the fundamental goal of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Or for, as Richard Feynman put it, "the joy of finding things out."

Since you have your Bible and think it tells you everything you need to know, you cannot imagine that people might actually pursue knowledge for it's own sake. But that says a lot more about the navel gazing and lack of imagination inherent in your world view than it does about any failings of science.

It occurs to me that maybe this is precisely the root of the problem most fundamentalists have with science; they don't get any joy out of finding things out because everything they find out is in direct conflict with their world view and causes painful cognitive dissonance.

I'll go with that hypothesis. I know that davey's postings cause me pain to read them, so they must be causing him pain to write them, eh?

[Constant Mews]

It's really quite simple, Dave. The purpose of science is to understand the true nature of the universe. If science produces results that have useful applications and make our lives easier, that is purely a side effect and has nothing to do with the fundamental goal of science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Or for, as Richard Feynman put it, "the joy of finding things out."

Since you have your Bible and think it tells you everything you need to know, you cannot imagine that people might actually pursue knowledge for it's own sake. But that says a lot more about the navel gazing and lack of imagination inherent in your world view than it does about any failings of science.

It occurs to me that maybe this is precisely the root of the problem most fundamentalists have with science; they don't get any joy out of finding things out because everything they find out is in direct conflict with their world view and causes painful cognitive dissonance.

I'll go with that hypothesis. I know that davey's postings cause me pain to read them, so they must be causing him pain to write them, eh?

I cannot agree. Dave's posting pattern reveals that he enjoys writing his posts - because they each reinforce his own ego. Dave is a classic narcissist (in addition to his other sterling qualities), but keep in mind that he is, for lack of a more precise description, mentally ill. Watch how he deals with word nuances and how often he fails to understand what he reads. There are some serious cognitive problems displayed in Dave's posts.

[Constant Mews]

You believe and I know. I know because I can read about it in detail from a great many different view points and it makes sense, it is internally consistent, it is consilient. And if I so choose, I can go and do the bloody experiments myself and decide if I want that part in my bit of knowledge or not.An excellent summary of what makes us superior - and I don't use that word lightly - to Dave.

He believes. We know. As PZ Meyers once commented: "all the facts are on our side. You lose."

[RAFH]

I like Dave's list of things geology is good for.

It says a lot. "Avoiding collision with asteroids" is my favorite.Maybe Geology can help us discover Earth's Brakes, to use them in a time of need...
Or at least help us figure out how to make the Earth "tip over" on its axis a la Wally Wonderpants, so the asteroid could hit an uninhabited area. :rolleyes:

I prefer we learn it how to do the Mississippi Half Step Uptown Toodleloo and simply sidestep them little buggers with a bit o' style.

[RAFH]

It occurs to me that maybe this is precisely the root of the problem most fundamentalists have with science; they don't get any joy out of finding things out because everything they find out is in direct conflict with their world view and causes painful cognitive dissonance.

I'll go with that hypothesis. I know that davey's postings cause me pain to read them, so they must be causing him pain to write them, eh?

I cannot agree. Dave's posting pattern reveals that he enjoys writing his posts - because they each reinforce his own ego. Dave is a classic narcissist (in addition to his other sterling qualities), but keep in mind that he is, for lack of a more precise description, mentally ill. Watch how he deals with word nuances and how often he fails to understand what he reads. There are some serious cognitive problems displayed in Dave's posts.

OK, I'll accept that, but I'd like to do a brain scam (sic) to be sure, you think we could talk davey into some electro-shock therapy. I promise I will remain clean and sober the whole time I am at the controls.

[RAFH]

You believe and I know. I know because I can read about it in detail from a great many different view points and it makes sense, it is internally consistent, it is consilient. And if I so choose, I can go and do the bloody experiments myself and decide if I want that part in my bit of knowledge or not.An excellent summary of what makes us superior - and I don't use that word lightly - to Dave.

He believes. We know. As PZ Meyers once commented: "all the facts are on our side. You lose."

I don't know about it making us superior but I would say empirical knowledge is a damned sight more reliable and accurate than any belief.

If I have a supposed 'fact', I can test that 'fact' and see if it is indeed how reality is. I can learn about it and the supposed reasons behind it being a 'fact' and I can do the homework both internally and externally to validate or invalidate those supposed reasons. But somebody's beliefs, I have no means of validating them nor why they believe them other than their word it is what they believe. Maybe they are right, maybe not.

If I am going somewhere I can either trust someone who says he believes he knows the way or I can get a map. Then I have to trust the map maker but if it's a big map making company I have had successful experiences with in the past, I have reason to trust their maps. More than I do to trust somebody who says they believe they know the the way.

[Dave Hawkins]

Please note the previously posted link:

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

[Constant Mews]

Please note the previously posted link:

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

And yet ANOTHER LIE. Glenn has made it quite clear that he DOES use the very geological science that specifies an old world in his petroleum searches. Do we need to get Glenn here to point out your lie, Dave? Do we need to invite Glenn to school you in competence, manners, and honesty? The same way he did at Theologyweb when he spanked you three ways from Sunday and sent you running in fear from the thread on burrows?

Think, Dave, think! This is the internet: your earlier evasions, lies, and cowardness are there to see at theologyweb. That Glenn showed you a fool and unChristian ass is in electronic media for all eternity.

Bertsche says that you're a liar; should we invite Morton here to confirm it for you?

[Constant Mews]

Oh, and Dave? From the very link you provided (why don't you ever bother to read them - you wouldn't look quite so silly if you did): But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him. Glenn Morton said it.

Once again, Dave lies.

[ck1]

Please note the previously posted link:

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)

On the other hand, "old earth" names for strata are based on solid science and that science (geology) is active and productive.

How many successful companies looking for oil and minerals are run by YECs using YEC concepts of earth science?

[Constant Mews]

None, that's the point. Dave cannot point to a single scientific success of the YEC paradigm. Not a single one. He has been challenged on this point dozens if not hundreds of times and has yet to present a single scientific discovery made using the creationist 'view'.

Of course, Dave is incapable of distinguishing between discoveries made BY creationists and discoveries made USING creationist thinking, as we have already seen demonstrated.

[jupiter]

Dave, you're delusional. "Different names for different strata"? It's not to-MAY-to v. to-MAH-to.

I ask you again (now that it's tax season): How much money have you earned finding oil using young earth geology?

[Constant Mews]

Please note the previously posted link:

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)Racists and yokels from the American heartland, apparently.

[Occam's Aftershave]

It's not about oil and gas, but here's a good example for you Dave.

Before Tiktaalik was discovered, there was a big gap in tetrapod fossils between distinctly fish-like organisms like Panderichthys (approx. 385 MYO) , and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. (approx. 365 MYO)

Scientists searching for the intermediate form weren't 100% sure what it would look like, but they knew that it had to lie in the intermediate time between those dates. So the consulted a geologist and identified areas to search that had been swamp/shoreline at a time approx. 375 MYO. Lo and behold, they found the Tiktaalik specimen with not only a distinctly intermediate morphology but at the predicted age too.

Without geology to precisely identify and data the strata to the proper age, science would be without one of its more spectacular finds.

Now tell us, can you identify any predictions and subsequent scientific discoveries made using the creationISM worldview. I did.'t say by a creationIST, I said by using creationISM.

[Constant Mews]

It's not about oil and gas, but here's a good example for you Dave.

Before Tiktaalik was discovered, there was a big gap in tetrapod fossils between distinctly fish-like organisms like Panderichthys (approx. 385 MYO) , and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. (approx. 365 MYO)

Scientists searching for the intermediate form weren't 100% sure what it would look like, but they knew that it had to lie in the intermediate time between those dates. So the consulted a geologist and identified areas to search that had been swamp/shoreline at a time approx. 375 MYO. Lo and behold, they found the Tiktaalik specimen with not only a distinctly intermediate morphology but at the predicted age too.

Without geology to precisely identify and data the strata to the proper age, science would be without one of its more spectacular finds.

Now tell us, can you identify any predictions and subsequent scientific discoveries made using the creationISM worldview. I did.'t say by a creationIST, I said by using creationISM.

What I enjoy so much about that example is that it is impossible from a creationist's point of view. The only possible explanation Dave might offer is - wait for it - fraud.

[VoxRat]

...The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)Racists and yokels from the American heartland, apparently.Not really.

I spent a few days on the Navajo reservation in Arizona last summer, and the people there referred to themselves as "Indians".

I think we had this conversation at AtBC, and Deadman (who is 1/2 Apache, if I remember right) said that was typical.

[llanitedave]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Absolute and utter poppycock, Dave.

1. Finding oil and minerals in the Earth's crust requires an understanding of how they are formed and emplaced. This ain't the good old days any more, where free oil just seeped out of the ground to annoy you, or where gold and silver and copper appeared on the surface. The easy stuff is long, long gone. Economic geologists need to know about volcanic processes, hydrothermal transport, or stratigraphy and fossil succession. A young-earth paradigm is absolutely useless for such work. Oil and hard-rock minerals accumulate over deep time, not genesis time.
2. Avoiding earthquake zones is impossible if you don't understand the causes of earthquakes. Earthquakes are the result of -- guess what? -- geologic processes operating over deep time. The Basin and Range in the American west has been extending for some 15 million years. The Hurricane fault in Utah has been active for maybe five million years. The San Andreas fault has been going well over a million, as have the tilting and fracturing that created Death Valley. And btw, nobody "builds" cities, except for maybe Washington DC and Brasila. They grow organically, within easy reach of resources, wherever they may be. Understanding earthquakes helps us protect structures and roadways as we rebuild and redesign -- we're not going to avoid them by moving the city wholesale.
3. Avoiding collisions with asteroids? How the hell do you even know they're a threat? Oh, I know -- the geologic record they leave in -- you got it -- deep time.
4. Understanding, predicting, and avoiding volcanoes requires -- here we go again -- deep time. Mount St. Helens was known to be the most dangerous and active volcano in North America before its 1980 eruption. The reason this was know is because a geologic record of its activity extended back over 200,000 years. That made it a young volcano!. Get that, Dave? 200,000 years for a geologic feature is YOUNG! You can't even begin to have a clue about how volcanoes work if you deny that basic, and very, very obvious, fact.
5. Good soil is not made overnight, Dave. Soil is caused by surface materials interacting with climate and life over a long period of time. 6,000 years might get you a good shallow soil. It's not going to help you understand all the subsurface weathering, leaching, and re-mineralization that goes on at depth. It's not going to explain the (formerly) deep soils of the midwest, or the sandy loams of the great plains. See, Dave -- soil is the youngest geologic feature of all. And even it requires more time than the young-earth paradigm can supply.
6. Trying to maintain the soil we have is hard enough when you understand how it is formed and where it disappears to. If all you have is your genesis fantasy to fall back on for understanding, you aren't going to be able to figure out anything beyond the most primitive and superficial conservation techniques.

7. Yeah, I'll give you a bonus. I work in nuclear waste. Deep geologic disposal is the preferred solution for dealing with the stuff. Spent fuel remains dangerous for thousands of years. Tens of thousands, actually. If you put it in an underground repository, you have to have a high degree of confidence that environmental events aren't going to mobilize that material for thousands of years into the future. If you don't know how old the rock is, and you have no understanding of what events and processes have shaped that rock over time, then you just might as well store it aboveground until the cladding rusts -- your protection level is no different.

Claiming that an understanding of deep time in geologic processes isn't valuable to society is just plain self-indulgent deluded idiocy.

Great job, Dave and friends, for your attempts to revert this nation to third-world status, and to bring our civilization back to medieval levels of health and prosperity. I guess those were the "good old days" for you guys, eh?

[ericmurphy]

I just have to rant about this one more time here ...

Think of how much progress we could make in so many productive areas of science--and there are many--if we could redirect all those brilliant minds being wasted on speculations about historical geology! Of course, the same point about wasted minds could be made about many government bureaucrats and certain types of ambulance chasing lawyers as well.

Yes, Dave, let's force everyone with sufficient brain power to work on it to find a cure for cancer. Are you sure you're not a communist?

Meanwhile, Dave: what possible use do you think your expositions on the age of earth, the purported falsehood of radiometric dating, the wrongheadedness of evolutionary theory, etc. have for anyone?

To ask a question no creationist on TWeb has been able to answer either, what tangible benefits have there ever been to young-earth creationism?

Creationists love to go on and on how evolutionary theory, geology, etc. have no practical benefit. But when you ask them the same thing about their stupid "theories," they suddenly go quiet.

Got an answer for me, Dave? What use is creationism?

[RAFH]

Please note the previously posted link:

Dave, doesn't that ol' meanie Glenn Morton use "old earth" geology for "finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust"? Why, yes, he does. (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm) In fact, he's good enough at it that international oil companies pay him for his expertise, and have done for over two decades.

How much have you been paid to find oil and minerals using "young earth" geology? Have you successfully found anything (including your own posterior, using both hands) through "young earth" geology?No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

Yes, davey, of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all), keep the fantasy going. Har-de-har-har-har.

[RAFH]

It's not about oil and gas, but here's a good example for you Dave.

Before Tiktaalik was discovered, there was a big gap in tetrapod fossils between distinctly fish-like organisms like Panderichthys (approx. 385 MYO) , and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. (approx. 365 MYO)

Scientists searching for the intermediate form weren't 100% sure what it would look like, but they knew that it had to lie in the intermediate time between those dates. So the consulted a geologist and identified areas to search that had been swamp/shoreline at a time approx. 375 MYO. Lo and behold, they found the Tiktaalik specimen with not only a distinctly intermediate morphology but at the predicted age too.

Without geology to precisely identify and data the strata to the proper age, science would be without one of its more spectacular finds.

Now tell us, can you identify any predictions and subsequent scientific discoveries made using the creationISM worldview. I did.'t say by a creationIST, I said by using creationISM.

Not only was it a spectacular find in and of itself, it was an even more spectacular find because of the process used to look for it, namely that evolutionary science predicted it, where and when it would have lived and thus the old earth age geology, normal geology as used by all oil and mining companies and any other organization that is doing heavy work in or below the ground or seeking mineral deposits or doing seismic analysys (one I neglected to mention earlier in answer to davey of kids4truth and truthmatters (not at all)), was able to pinpoint the approximate location. This validated the practical predictive value of both sciences. Which is exactly what davey was asking about, what sort of practical purposes normal geology, mainstream geology, the geology that accepts, understands and utilizes the afact of the Earth's ancient age of 4.55 billion years. I wonder what interesting practical purposes davey's voodoo geology is put to? Is there anyone actually using it successfully? One company in Israel was trying to, but I don't believe they've had much if any success.

[deadman_932]

...The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)Racists and yokels from the American heartland, apparently.Not really.

I spent a few days on the Navajo reservation in Arizona last summer, and the people there referred to themselves as "Indians".

I think we had this conversation at AtBC, and Deadman (who is 1/2 Apache, if I remember right) said that was typical.
Abalootly. Lots of people prefer Native American, with all it implies, but most people also use "Indian" for brevity, or native designations. A quick browse through current aboriginal online resources will confirm that: http://www.hanksville.org/NAresources/ http://www.nativeculturelinks.com/indians.html
(I rarely hear "aboriginal" used, but I thought I'd toss it in)

[Constant Mews]

Racists and yokels from the American heartland, apparently.Not really.

I spent a few days on the Navajo reservation in Arizona last summer, and the people there referred to themselves as "Indians".

I think we had this conversation at AtBC, and Deadman (who is 1/2 Apache, if I remember right) said that was typical.
Abalootly. Lots of people prefer Native American, with all it implies, but most people also use "Indian" for brevity, or native designations. A quick browse through current aboriginal online resources will confirm that: http://www.hanksville.org/NAresources/
(I rarely hear "aboriginal" used, but I thought I'd toss it in)

Interesting. Something about America I didn't know. And neither did Dave, apparently.

[Mike PSS]

Not really.

I spent a few days on the Navajo reservation in Arizona last summer, and the people there referred to themselves as "Indians".

I think we had this conversation at AtBC, and Deadman (who is 1/2 Apache, if I remember right) said that was typical.
Abalootly. Lots of people prefer Native American, with all it implies, but most people also use "Indian" for brevity, or native designations. A quick browse through current aboriginal online resources will confirm that: http://www.hanksville.org/NAresources/
(I rarely hear "aboriginal" used, but I thought I'd toss it in)

Interesting. Something about America I didn't know. And neither did Dave, apparently.I use "Indians" for brevity in conversation. Almost always in a general sense and when the subject is clearly about the Americas. I think the only person who has called me on this was a well known PC-Nazi who should have kept her mouth shut more often than not.

I have tried to read the history to learn and use the proper tribal names and designations. Though I'm sure I'll suffer from foot-in-mouth disease the more often I use, and butcher, the tribal names and history. :)

[hecaterin]

From all the way over here, I'd say "Native Americans". If I hear "Aborigines", I think of our locals. And "Indian" is just confusing, unless you say "Red Indian" to make it clear they're not from Gujarat or Darjeeling. Is "Red Indian" used any more?

[Pappy Jack]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?
Exactly, but Dave's whole approach to science, archaeology and history appears to be that if it doesn't support his idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible it's worthless.

[Pappy Jack]

Since when does the veracity of the scientific evidence for a 4.55 billion year old Earth depend on whether it helps you or not?This is a nonsensical question. Try again please.
No it isn't. That you don't understand the thought behind this question speaks volumes.

ETA: I see several people have pointed Dave's foolishness out to him.

[RAFH]

Abalootly. Lots of people prefer Native American, with all it implies, but most people also use "Indian" for brevity, or native designations. A quick browse through current aboriginal online resources will confirm that: http://www.hanksville.org/NAresources/
(I rarely hear "aboriginal" used, but I thought I'd toss it in)

Interesting. Something about America I didn't know. And neither did Dave, apparently.I use "Indians" for brevity in conversation. Almost always in a general sense and when the subject is clearly about the Americas. I think the only person who has called me on this was a well known PC-Nazi who should have kept her mouth shut more often than not.

I have tried to read the history to learn and use the proper tribal names and designations. Though I'm sure I'll suffer from foot-in-mouth disease the more often I use, and butcher, the tribal names and history. :)

That's a mighty big order Mike, you might get a few dozen of the larger nations and tribes but there are literally hundreds if not thousands of individual cultural groups ranging from a few dozen to many thousands. And that's just in the US, there are probably more than that in Canada. The Native North Americans never really got the chance to fully coalesce into more than a few significant nations, and those were pretty well demolished with the arrival of and domination by the Europeans.

[RAFH]

From all the way over here, I'd say "Native Americans". If I hear "Aborigines", I think of our locals. And "Indian" is just confusing, unless you say "Red Indian" to make it clear they're not from Gujarat or Darjeeling. Is "Red Indian" used any more?

Only for members of the Communist Party of Indian.

[deadman_932]

From all the way over here, I'd say "Native Americans". If I hear "Aborigines", I think of our locals. And "Indian" is just confusing, unless you say "Red Indian" to make it clear they're not from Gujarat or Darjeeling. Is "Red Indian" used any more?Not in the U.S....it never really caught on here. But in the U.K., the Scots seemed to like it. It's all just a mess.

[Jet Black]

on top of that our entire understanding of active geological processes is built on a number of things, such as the principle of superposition. If dave is correct about dating methods being false and saying that you get a 220 myo layer above a 50myo layer but under a 10myo layer, then the principle of superposition simply does not work. it's wrong, and that undermines our entire understanding of geology. The problem with that of course is that the principle of superposition works - in terms of the fossils and so on, it really works. We don't get rabbits in the precambrian or tyrannosaurs in the holocene rocks.. If the dates are really as out of whack as dave says, then our whole understanding of the formation processes is wrong, which would be really weird, because we see pumices and microclines and volcanic glass forming, and so we know how they form.

The combination of the knowledge of how these features form and our understanding of the physical processes is how we come to the conclusions that we do. if dave is right and all the dates are bollocks, then our understanding of these fundamental physical processes is completely wrong.

For all the bleating that they do, the creationists never tell us why these rocks don't constantly date to the minimum age of the detection method, which on the whole they should most certainly do. Ok, so maybe they come up with ad hoc rationalizations like accelerated decay, but even then, they have to violate physical principles in order to do so, which just leads us straight back to the point that if dave is right that all these dates are crap, then our understanding of these physical and geological processes is nonsense. The whole thing must be built up on nothing but fraud and imagination. That's right, tens of thousands of scientists and technicians the world over,of many different nationalities and religions, including young earth creationists like Kurt Wise, are all part of this massive fraud.

[Dave Hawkins]

Please note the previously posted link:

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)

On the other hand, "old earth" names for strata are based on solid science and that science (geology) is active and productive.

How many successful companies looking for oil and minerals are run by YECs using YEC concepts of earth science?Not too many people use the term "Indian" for Native Americans any more, but the term was used widely for many many years. I predict that geologic "time period" names will also one day be replaced with more meaningful names.

Old earth names for strata are NOT based on solid science. They are based upon Old Earth speculation beginning with the increasingly discredited Charles Lyell. a lawyer turned geologist who fooled a lot of scientists for many years.

[BWE]

Not too many people use the term "Indian" for Native Americans any more, but the term was used widely for many many years. I predict that geologic "time period" names will also one day be replaced with more meaningful names.

Old earth names for strata are NOT based on solid science. They are based upon Old Earth speculation beginning with the increasingly discredited Charles Lyell. a lawyer turned geologist who fooled a lot of scientists for many years.

Dave, are you ok?

[Dave Hawkins]

It's not about oil and gas, but here's a good example for you Dave.

Before Tiktaalik was discovered, there was a big gap in tetrapod fossils between distinctly fish-like organisms like Panderichthys (approx. 385 MYO) , and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. (approx. 365 MYO)

Scientists searching for the intermediate form weren't 100% sure what it would look like, but they knew that it had to lie in the intermediate time between those dates. So the consulted a geologist and identified areas to search that had been swamp/shoreline at a time approx. 375 MYO. Lo and behold, they found the Tiktaalik specimen with not only a distinctly intermediate morphology but at the predicted age too.

Without geology to precisely identify and data the strata to the proper age, science would be without one of its more spectacular finds.

Now tell us, can you identify any predictions and subsequent scientific discoveries made using the creationISM worldview. I did.'t say by a creationIST, I said by using creationISM.Yes, see my blog linked in my sig and do some searches. I have begun to compile these. Haven't listed many yet, but I hope to list many more. As you can imagine, I have a lot of projects.

[Ray Moscow]

Dave, three words of advice:

Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Intimate-History-Richard-Fortey/dp/0375706208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207651820&sr=8-1)

Read it.

Edit: You see, I've found that it's a lot more interesting to try to understand the "consensus" views of scientific topics and what evidence and reason lies behind those views than it was trying to refute things that I didn't understand.

[grmorton]

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

Dave, Dave Dave, wee Dave, disingenuous dave, and I might say disinformational Dave. :banghead:

The thing that forced me to confront the errors of young-earth creationism was the old earth things I saw in the geologic record. Things like channels canyons, footprints and burrows throughout the entire column. The geologic column shows much evidence of an old earth which evidence is used by ALL geoscientists in the oil industry.

You need to take a look at some of the geology we see on seismic in the oil industry.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canyons.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hardgrounds.htm


I have worked with a couple of YEC geoscientists who were good at what they did. I would be delighted to work with them again, but neither of them used YEC in their work. They too used old earth ideas to find oil, just like I do.

Once again, disingenuous Dave, you earn your name by saying things that are utter poppycock. I think you are very sad and pathetic, davie boy.

[Febble]

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

The term "Indian" is based on a false assumption, and I doubt that term is used in any serious investigation of the origins of those people. (Who, exactly, uses that term anymore?)

On the other hand, "old earth" names for strata are based on solid science and that science (geology) is active and productive.

How many successful companies looking for oil and minerals are run by YECs using YEC concepts of earth science?Not too many people use the term "Indian" for Native Americans any more, but the term was used widely for many many years. I predict that geologic "time period" names will also one day be replaced with more meaningful names.

Old earth names for strata are NOT based on solid science. They are based upon Old Earth speculation beginning with the increasingly discredited Charles Lyell. a lawyer turned geologist who fooled a lot of scientists for many years.

This is absurdly superficial, Dave. The issue is not the names people give to the strata (which could drawn randomly like the names of hurricanes, for all it would matter) but the theory that underlies those names. It's because the theory fits the data so well that it enables predictions to be made as to where, for example, to find oil.

There's a lot more wrong with the YEC view of geology than a timescale error of several orders of magnitude, although that is ludicrous enough. If the YEC timescale was correct, geological predictions wouldn't work, even if you deleted a few zeros first.

[Febble]

Dave, three words of advice:

Earth (http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Intimate-History-Richard-Fortey/dp/0375706208/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207651820&sr=8-1)

Read it.

In every sense.

Humans wrote the bible, God wrote the rocks. (http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

[Per Ahlberg]

This takes "pwned" to a new level.

Good to see you Glenn!

[Jet Black]

Yes, see my blog linked in my sig and do some searches. I have begun to compile these. Haven't listed many yet, but I hope to list many more. As you can imagine, I have a lot of projects.

are you going to list all the results that do agree with one another then?

[BWE]

This takes "pwned" to a new level.

Good to see you Glenn!

Just so I understand, Dave attributed something to Glenn Morton, the Glenn Morton I presume of Morton's Demon fame, the same Morton's Demon with which I concluded my argument in the dendrochronology debate with Dave at RDF, demonstrating that Dave hadn't even read my posts. Anyway, Dave claimed that Glenn Morton doesn't use Old Earth (may we dance naked in her warm rains) geology in his work with oil companies. Then, moments later, Glenn Morton, the Glenn Morton of Morton's Demon fame, pops in to point out that Dave made another stupid.

Did I get that right?

JFC. The irony makes me dizzy.

Hi Glenn, I hope you approve of my use of your allegory. It's very good.

[SteveF]

This thread is truly hilarious.

[Dave Hawkins]

Jet Black ... If Dave is Right about Dating methods, then the whole of geology is a massive fucking nothing.Absolute and utter poppycock. This is a myth of galactic proportions. I am amazed that a man of science could utter such nonsense.

Let me ask you something, JB. What are the practical applications of geology? Would you agree that geology is a discipline which is studied for the benefit of the human race? I hope you would. So again, what are the practical apps?

1) Finding oil and minerals in the earth's crust
2) Trying to avoid earthquake zones when building cities
3) Avoiding collision with asteroids (probably not actually geology)
4) Understanding, predicting and avoiding volcanoes
5) Studying soil types and what makes good soil
6) Trying to maintain the soil we have

None of these things have ANYTHING to do with the age of the earth, or the ages of various strata.

What else? I'm probably missing some, but I'm quite sure we would get on just fine if we all started to believe that the earth is only 10,000 YA instead of 4.6 billion years old.

Can you tell me how believing that the earth is 4.6 BYO would help me or anyone else?
(Other than that it would be a prerequisite for tenure in a secular university geology department)

Absolute and utter poppycock, Dave.

1. Finding oil and minerals in the Earth's crust requires an understanding of how they are formed and emplaced. This ain't the good old days any more, where free oil just seeped out of the ground to annoy you, or where gold and silver and copper appeared on the surface. The easy stuff is long, long gone. Economic geologists need to know about volcanic processes, hydrothermal transport, or stratigraphy and fossil succession. A young-earth paradigm is absolutely useless for such work. Oil and hard-rock minerals accumulate over deep time, not genesis time.
2. Avoiding earthquake zones is impossible if you don't understand the causes of earthquakes. Earthquakes are the result of -- guess what? -- geologic processes operating over deep time. The Basin and Range in the American west has been extending for some 15 million years. The Hurricane fault in Utah has been active for maybe five million years. The San Andreas fault has been going well over a million, as have the tilting and fracturing that created Death Valley. And btw, nobody "builds" cities, except for maybe Washington DC and Brasila. They grow organically, within easy reach of resources, wherever they may be. Understanding earthquakes helps us protect structures and roadways as we rebuild and redesign -- we're not going to avoid them by moving the city wholesale.
3. Avoiding collisions with asteroids? How the hell do you even know they're a threat? Oh, I know -- the geologic record they leave in -- you got it -- deep time.
4. Understanding, predicting, and avoiding volcanoes requires -- here we go again -- deep time. Mount St. Helens was known to be the most dangerous and active volcano in North America before its 1980 eruption. The reason this was know is because a geologic record of its activity extended back over 200,000 years. That made it a young volcano!. Get that, Dave? 200,000 years for a geologic feature is YOUNG! You can't even begin to have a clue about how volcanoes work if you deny that basic, and very, very obvious, fact.
5. Good soil is not made overnight, Dave. Soil is caused by surface materials interacting with climate and life over a long period of time. 6,000 years might get you a good shallow soil. It's not going to help you understand all the subsurface weathering, leaching, and re-mineralization that goes on at depth. It's not going to explain the (formerly) deep soils of the midwest, or the sandy loams of the great plains. See, Dave -- soil is the youngest geologic feature of all. And even it requires more time than the young-earth paradigm can supply.
6. Trying to maintain the soil we have is hard enough when you understand how it is formed and where it disappears to. If all you have is your genesis fantasy to fall back on for understanding, you aren't going to be able to figure out anything beyond the most primitive and superficial conservation techniques.

7. Yeah, I'll give you a bonus. I work in nuclear waste. Deep geologic disposal is the preferred solution for dealing with the stuff. Spent fuel remains dangerous for thousands of years. Tens of thousands, actually. If you put it in an underground repository, you have to have a high degree of confidence that environmental events aren't going to mobilize that material for thousands of years into the future. If you don't know how old the rock is, and you have no understanding of what events and processes have shaped that rock over time, then you just might as well store it aboveground until the cladding rusts -- your protection level is no different.

Claiming that an understanding of deep time in geologic processes isn't valuable to society is just plain self-indulgent deluded idiocy.

Great job, Dave and friends, for your attempts to revert this nation to third-world status, and to bring our civilization back to medieval levels of health and prosperity. I guess those were the "good old days" for you guys, eh?

1) No it doesn't. It requires a familiarity with patterns of where previous finds have been made. You think knowing something about volcanoes will help you find oil? Or iron ore? Or gold perhaps? It won't. Oil and coal and hard rock minerals DO NOT accumulate over deep time. Scientists today invoke the magical millions of years for almost everything, but it's false. Oil and coal and hard rock minerals simply require the right conditions. Click HERE (http://truthmatters.info/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/) and search the page for the words "coal" and "oil." You'll find some very recent studies which will hopefully rid you of that myth.
2) Earthquakes are the result of geologic processes which you think have been occurring for millions of years. But you ignore the many evidences that these processes HAVE NOT been occurring for millions of years. Guess where Wegener (the founder of modern plate tectonics) got his ideas from? He got them from Antonio Snider-Pelligrini who proposed a RAPID separation of the continents. Modern plate tectonics theory has many problems and there are many phenomena it cannot explain. CPT and HPT from creationists, while not perfect either, explain far more phenomena.
3) You think a belief in Deep Time(TM) helps avoid asteroid collisions? No. Being able to track orbits is what helps here. There's even a nifty we site from NASA (or maybe it's JPL, I forget) that let's you see the orbits. I think JonF or Occam gave me that link. Talk to them if you want to see it.
4) Nonsense. Please show me how you came to the idea that we have a record of Mt. Saint Helens eruptions of 200,000 years. Thanks. I'll be waiting.
5) Here we go again. Everything takes millions of years. Even soil in your view. You're wrong. The mineral components of soil are nothing more than ground up rock and some chemical nutrients. And lots of rock can be ground up, washed away and redeposited in a global hydraulic, tectonic and volcanic cataclysm, can it not? Do you see any soil being built up today (except in places like rain forests and organic farms)? No. Rather, soil is being washed away. The other component of soil is organic matter (OM). This only requires decades and the right conditions. Ask a good (old) organic farmer about how much his fields have "uppened" in the last 50 years and you will see this.
6) Not even worth a response.
7) Might as well store it above ground if I don't know how old the rock is? Wow. You've got to be kidding. I'm quite sure it's much better to store it underground whether you think you know the age of the rock or not.

[Jet Black]

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

Dave, Dave Dave, wee Dave, disingenuous dave, and I might say disinformational Dave. :banghead:

The thing that forced me to confront the errors of young-earth creationism was the old earth things I saw in the geologic record. Things like channels canyons, footprints and burrows throughout the entire column. The geologic column shows much evidence of an old earth which evidence is used by ALL geoscientists in the oil industry.

You need to take a look at some of the geology we see on seismic in the oil industry.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canyons.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hardgrounds.htm


I have worked with a couple of YEC geoscientists who were good at what they did. I would be delighted to work with them again, but neither of them used YEC in their work. They too used old earth ideas to find oil, just like I do.

Once again, disingenuous Dave, you earn your name by saying things that are utter poppycock. I think you are very sad and pathetic, davie boy.

Glenn, just out of interest, during your time as a YEC geologist, were you ever of the opinion as dave is, that scientists were tossing away results that disagreed with the old-earth paradigm, and only accepted results that agreed with roughtly what they were expecting anyway? have you ever heard any of your fellow YEC geologists making claims of widespread institutionalised fraud and lying to funding bodies as dave is?

[BWE]

5) Here we go again. Everything takes millions of years. Even soil in your view. You're wrong. The mineral components of soil are nothing more than ground up rock and some chemical nutrients. And lots of rock can be ground up, washed away and redeposited in a global hydraulic, tectonic and volcanic cataclysm, can it not? Do you see any soil being built up today (except in places like rain forests and organic farms)? No. Rather, soil is being washed away. The other component of soil is organic matter (OM). This only requires decades and the right conditions. Ask a good (old) organic farmer about how much his fields have "uppened" in the last 50 years and you will see this.

Gaaak! How does this work here? Do I have to start a new thread or is this on-topic enough?

[Febble]

I think it's on topic. Dave's response to llanitedave might be worthy of its own OP though! What a rich mine he offers.

But my sense is that it should stay here, but that if anyone wants to take a piece and start a specific thread on that particular portion, feel free. Could be good.

[SteveF]

I think it's on topic. Dave's response to llanitedave might be worthy of its own OP though! What a rich mine he offers.

I just broke through the "ignore" barrier and read that. It's not just a rich mine, it's a veritable continent of pure platinum hilarity. If this is the kind of genuis Dave has been coming up with recently, maybe I need to take him off ignore and treat myself to some much needed laughs.

[Dave Hawkins]

on top of that our entire understanding of active geological processes is built on a number of things, such as the principle of superposition. If dave is correct about dating methods being false and saying that you get a 220 myo layer above a 50myo layer but under a 10myo layer, then the principle of superposition simply does not work. it's wrong, and that undermines our entire understanding of geology. The problem with that of course is that the principle of superposition works - in terms of the fossils and so on, it really works. We don't get rabbits in the precambrian or tyrannosaurs in the holocene rocks.. If the dates are really as out of whack as dave says, then our whole understanding of the formation processes is wrong, which would be really weird, because we see pumices and microclines and volcanic glass forming, and so we know how they form.

The combination of the knowledge of how these features form and our understanding of the physical processes is how we come to the conclusions that we do. if dave is right and all the dates are bollocks, then our understanding of these fundamental physical processes is completely wrong.

For all the bleating that they do, the creationists never tell us why these rocks don't constantly date to the minimum age of the detection method, which on the whole they should most certainly do. Ok, so maybe they come up with ad hoc rationalizations like accelerated decay, but even then, they have to violate physical principles in order to do so, which just leads us straight back to the point that if dave is right that all these dates are crap, then our understanding of these physical and geological processes is nonsense. The whole thing must be built up on nothing but fraud and imagination. That's right, tens of thousands of scientists and technicians the world over,of many different nationalities and religions, including young earth creationists like Kurt Wise, are all part of this massive fraud.The simple idea that lower layers are many millions of years older than upper layers ignores much hard data from the field, not the least of which is the universal pattern of discordance of radiometric "dates." It's a nice sounding theory, but that's about all.

For a good explanation of why it doesn't work, read this ... Sedimentological Interpretation of the Tonto Group Stratigraphy
(Grand Canyon Colorado River)

Lithology and Mineral Resources, Vol.39.No.5, 2004, pp. 504 – 508.

In my article published recently by Lithology and Mineral Resources [Berthault, 2002], I demonstrated on the basis of experiments in sedimentation of heterogeneous sand mixtures in flow conditions that the three principles of superposition, continuity and original horizontality of strata affirmed by Steno, should be supplemented and re-considered.

I will now show that the stratigraphic divisions of the geological column founded on these principles do not correspond to the reality of sedimentary genesis. I will use the Grand Canyon as a concrete example.

...

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l188/dhawkinsmo/berthault_tonto.jpg

[Dave Hawkins]

No, Glenn does not use old earth geology to find oil and minerals. Glenn happens to believe the earth is old and uses the old earth names for various strata, but the age of the earth has no bearing on his discoveries. Using old earth names for strata is a bit like calling Native Americans "Indians." They aren't from India, but the erroneous name stuck and many people still use the term. Telling one's children there is a Santa Claus, like telling students the earth is millions of years old, may not hurt anything, but it has no bearing on the real world of science either.

Dave, Dave Dave, wee Dave, disingenuous dave, and I might say disinformational Dave. :banghead:

The thing that forced me to confront the errors of young-earth creationism was the old earth things I saw in the geologic record. Things like channels canyons, footprints and burrows throughout the entire column. The geologic column shows much evidence of an old earth which evidence is used by ALL geoscientists in the oil industry.

You need to take a look at some of the geology we see on seismic in the oil industry.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/canyons.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rivchan.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hardgrounds.htm


I have worked with a couple of YEC geoscientists who were good at what they did. I would be delighted to work with them again, but neither of them used YEC in their work. They too used old earth ideas to find oil, just like I do.

Once again, disingenuous Dave, you earn your name by saying things that are utter poppycock. I think you are very sad and pathetic, davie boy.Well, I hear you SAY that you use Old Earth principles, but I have yet to hear anyone like you actually explain how this works. If you're so sure of yourself, it shouldn't be difficult. I'll be wa