"No. What I did not like was that you failed to address the point and merely "assumed" that half-hearted-response would eliminate the data that so refutes evolutionism's mythologies today.
"
Dude did nothing but a copy and paste. Any response is more than he deserved if you cannot at least present something in your own words. None of us here are really knowledgable enough about the situation to present an original thought, we can at least assemble a coherent argument without resorting to a copy and paste job.
By my counting of the 12, I conclusively showed that 7 were completely false, gave explanations that left room for debate on 2, questioned the logic of 2 and admitted that I did not know what 1 was trying to say. The majority were conclusively refuted and the rest save one had holes punched in them though they were not completely refuted.
"A poster-child example of this was the issue with salts in the sea. Uranium salts are not in equilibrium - they are being added 100x faster than the outflux. "
Two things. First, I believe Paul has by now posted the explanation in the form of a paper on the matter, so another refuted. Second, in none of your posts supposing things out of equilibrium, the U and the He, have you mentioned where they measured the concentrations and found them changing at the same rate as their material balances suggest. Without a rate of change measurment, all we have is their material balance which is easy to get wrong because you miss something, especially in such a complex situation. Without rate of change data, they have nothing but an unfounded assertion. I suspect they might have known what would happen if they took that data and decided it might not be a good idea to do. It would show that things were in equilibrium.
"Intead of "moving on past this salt data" - I continue to "Stick with it""
Then let's stick with it on Wieland. We have an actual paper, dig through the paper to show me that he was being honest.
"The Mississippi River dumps about 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If that river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been long since filled. By measuring the rate of growth of the delta (about 250 feet per year) its age calculates to about 4000 years. "
But...
"Two hundred million years ago the mouth of the Mississippi river was at Cairo Illinois, not at New Orleans, Louisiana. The Mississippi and other rivers had to fill in a huge amount of sediment which is now under dry land from Cairo Illinois down to New Orleans.
There are 1,588,604,000,000 sq. meters in the Gulf of Mexico. From seismic data and gravity data, I know that there is an average of 15,200 meters of sediment over this region. We have actually drilled through about 10,000 meters of sediment so that is indisputable. Now, 1,588,604,000,000 x 15200 = 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters.
The Mississippi River carries about 210 x 10^6 tons per year. [see Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296)
That works out to be 210 x 10^9 kg per year. There are 2400 kg per cubic meter, so dividing we have 210 x 10^9 kg per year / 2400 kg per cm = 87,500,000 cubic meters per year. A good assumption is that the other rivers emptying into the Gulf probably are equivalent to another Mississippi River. Thus we will assume that 175,000,000 cubic meters per year are deposited.
Dividing this into the volume of the Gulf sediments we find 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters/175,000,000 cubic meters per year = 137,981,604 years. That is 137 million years for the river to fill up the Gulf of Mexico.
...
The Mississippi has been in its present place for about 200 million years. Why 200 rather than 137? Because some of the sediment was deposited in the Jurassic at Cairo Illinois was then re-eroded and deposited in Arkansas, where it was then re-eroded and moved to Louisiana, where it is now being re-eroded and put into the Gulf. The net sediment influx is smaller over the past 200 million years than what we see today. This is true both because of re-erosion as well as in the past the Mississippi's drainage area was much smaller so that it carried less sediment. Today the Mississippi erodes from Arkansas. 200 million years ago, Arkansas was under water and thus couldn't be eroded."
Lost another one.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm
"Excellent propaganda UTEOTW! When the data is NOT in your favor (data that you CLAIM does not exist) you call it "an anomaly"!!"
No I call it the truth. If I were to say that isochron dating of meteorites show that the solar system is 4,567,000,000 years old and that fact alone settles the whole debate, you would not take me serious. Yet you expect me to take you serious if you can dig up something that is currently unexplainable. The truth of the matter is that there are anomalies in nature. Scientists are generally fairly well versed in statistics to know how to identify these outliers. You finding a few outliers will not counter all the known information. Go read a few geology texts, then a few astronomy text, then a biology texts, and so on. You'll see innumerable facts that point to an old earth. When you have a tremendous body of knowledge that shows one thing, a few things on the side that cannot be explained is not a threat. You have to find a way to better explain the great body of evidence to be taken seriously, not find a handful of unexplained things. But, as this thread so well demonstrates, those things you think that cannot be explained under an old earth usually can be and show that those initially pushing them as young earth were ignoring something whether willingly or innocently.
"However - evolution "needs" the ability to "Self organize" to have "genetic data infused cumulatively so that beagles give birth to wolves on some regular - albeit infrequent - basis". In the evolutionists fairytale - this must happen "so often" that the wolf offspring being to breed "with each other" and form viable communities."
You are off on hopeful monsters again. No real evolutionists believes in saltation so your strawman has no stuffing. Besides, who out there is supposing that you should be able to back to wolves from beagles?
Though I must say that I love my little beagle mix.
"
Dude did nothing but a copy and paste. Any response is more than he deserved if you cannot at least present something in your own words. None of us here are really knowledgable enough about the situation to present an original thought, we can at least assemble a coherent argument without resorting to a copy and paste job.
By my counting of the 12, I conclusively showed that 7 were completely false, gave explanations that left room for debate on 2, questioned the logic of 2 and admitted that I did not know what 1 was trying to say. The majority were conclusively refuted and the rest save one had holes punched in them though they were not completely refuted.
"A poster-child example of this was the issue with salts in the sea. Uranium salts are not in equilibrium - they are being added 100x faster than the outflux. "
Two things. First, I believe Paul has by now posted the explanation in the form of a paper on the matter, so another refuted. Second, in none of your posts supposing things out of equilibrium, the U and the He, have you mentioned where they measured the concentrations and found them changing at the same rate as their material balances suggest. Without a rate of change measurment, all we have is their material balance which is easy to get wrong because you miss something, especially in such a complex situation. Without rate of change data, they have nothing but an unfounded assertion. I suspect they might have known what would happen if they took that data and decided it might not be a good idea to do. It would show that things were in equilibrium.
"Intead of "moving on past this salt data" - I continue to "Stick with it""
Then let's stick with it on Wieland. We have an actual paper, dig through the paper to show me that he was being honest.
"The Mississippi River dumps about 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If that river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been long since filled. By measuring the rate of growth of the delta (about 250 feet per year) its age calculates to about 4000 years. "
But...
"Two hundred million years ago the mouth of the Mississippi river was at Cairo Illinois, not at New Orleans, Louisiana. The Mississippi and other rivers had to fill in a huge amount of sediment which is now under dry land from Cairo Illinois down to New Orleans.
There are 1,588,604,000,000 sq. meters in the Gulf of Mexico. From seismic data and gravity data, I know that there is an average of 15,200 meters of sediment over this region. We have actually drilled through about 10,000 meters of sediment so that is indisputable. Now, 1,588,604,000,000 x 15200 = 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters.
The Mississippi River carries about 210 x 10^6 tons per year. [see Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296)
That works out to be 210 x 10^9 kg per year. There are 2400 kg per cubic meter, so dividing we have 210 x 10^9 kg per year / 2400 kg per cm = 87,500,000 cubic meters per year. A good assumption is that the other rivers emptying into the Gulf probably are equivalent to another Mississippi River. Thus we will assume that 175,000,000 cubic meters per year are deposited.
Dividing this into the volume of the Gulf sediments we find 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters/175,000,000 cubic meters per year = 137,981,604 years. That is 137 million years for the river to fill up the Gulf of Mexico.
...
The Mississippi has been in its present place for about 200 million years. Why 200 rather than 137? Because some of the sediment was deposited in the Jurassic at Cairo Illinois was then re-eroded and deposited in Arkansas, where it was then re-eroded and moved to Louisiana, where it is now being re-eroded and put into the Gulf. The net sediment influx is smaller over the past 200 million years than what we see today. This is true both because of re-erosion as well as in the past the Mississippi's drainage area was much smaller so that it carried less sediment. Today the Mississippi erodes from Arkansas. 200 million years ago, Arkansas was under water and thus couldn't be eroded."
Lost another one.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm
"Excellent propaganda UTEOTW! When the data is NOT in your favor (data that you CLAIM does not exist) you call it "an anomaly"!!"
No I call it the truth. If I were to say that isochron dating of meteorites show that the solar system is 4,567,000,000 years old and that fact alone settles the whole debate, you would not take me serious. Yet you expect me to take you serious if you can dig up something that is currently unexplainable. The truth of the matter is that there are anomalies in nature. Scientists are generally fairly well versed in statistics to know how to identify these outliers. You finding a few outliers will not counter all the known information. Go read a few geology texts, then a few astronomy text, then a biology texts, and so on. You'll see innumerable facts that point to an old earth. When you have a tremendous body of knowledge that shows one thing, a few things on the side that cannot be explained is not a threat. You have to find a way to better explain the great body of evidence to be taken seriously, not find a handful of unexplained things. But, as this thread so well demonstrates, those things you think that cannot be explained under an old earth usually can be and show that those initially pushing them as young earth were ignoring something whether willingly or innocently.
"However - evolution "needs" the ability to "Self organize" to have "genetic data infused cumulatively so that beagles give birth to wolves on some regular - albeit infrequent - basis". In the evolutionists fairytale - this must happen "so often" that the wolf offspring being to breed "with each other" and form viable communities."
You are off on hopeful monsters again. No real evolutionists believes in saltation so your strawman has no stuffing. Besides, who out there is supposing that you should be able to back to wolves from beagles?
Though I must say that I love my little beagle mix.
