Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-29-2010, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,884,280 times
Reputation: 3767

Advertisements

I've linked to a recently updated 3-D geological methodology that is in common use now in modern oil resource and geological studies. This makes an interesting read, especially for those hopelessly stuck in references to very old methods (i.e.: those used in the late '80s, the entire '90s and the first 2/3rds of the '2000s. Yep; that 1987 paper the science critics might post as 'proof' that geosciences are just "not to be trusted!!" are hopelessly out of date.)

3D Modeling of Geologic Maps (http://www.dgi.com/earthvision/evarticles/2003-2008/evarticles_3DMapsLuxey.html - broken link)

All the key elements used in modern field studies are herein combined in the high-powered and high-speed computing of a modern IT system to provide what you see in these glorious pictures. Please do click on and enjoy the sidebar pix to see the evolution of these graphics.

Some of those important dating elements include the latest iterations of the various (and growing) numbers of increasingly reliable and cross-supporting methodologies using micro-sampling and highly sophisticated micro-interrogation methods that leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the technologically open-minded and interested observer. within rational and stated limits of course, but certainly a lot better than "It's all only 6037 years old, when it all happened one afternoon!"

Breakthrough In Geological Dating Imminent

However, even this paper from 1999 (Zah oldt dayz!) shows the combination of at least 9 different methodologies to arrive at their careful conclusions (MZ levels, lithostratigraphy, dated geo-level placements, magneto-stratigraphy, Magnetic polarity shifts in iron-baring minerals, of course radio-isotopic dating, phytolithic stratigraphy, Argon/Argon and K-Argon dating.

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/23/13...as;96/23/13235

Quite the array of cross-checks just to pinpoint a lone rodent tooth sample, huh? But nonetheless, to refute and casually dismiss it as "a biased and 'invented' lie", the refuter would REALLY have to do their techno-homework and present more than a "Nahhnahh-nahhh neener-neener" argument. Assuming they honestly intended to be credible....

(I'm all ears, BTW)

All of this just to pinpoint and clarify the confidently claimed ages of the evolution of changes in the rodent tooth structure under study as being valid and in the 35.34 - 36.62 Ma (Mega-annum = Million years) range. (I note the scientists here were only too happy to improve on previously older time determinations as the techniques are improved and of course, that relentless cross-checking is applied) But far-far-FAR from everything being a mere 6037+ years old of course.

Of course, (pause for a deep calming breath....) those who would rather not witness the truth are going to be limited in their appreciation of this work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-29-2010, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,338 posts, read 93,530,714 times
Reputation: 17829
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I've linked to a recently updated 3-D geological methodology that is in common use now in modern oil resource and geological studies. This makes an interesting read, especially for those hopelessly stuck in references to very old methods (i.e.: those used in the late '80s, the entire '90s and the first 2/3rds of the '2000s. Yep; that 1987 paper the science critics might post as 'proof' that geosciences are just "not to be trusted!!" are hopelessly out of date.)

3D Modeling of Geologic Maps (http://www.dgi.com/earthvision/evarticles/2003-2008/evarticles_3DMapsLuxey.html - broken link)

All the key elements used in modern field studies are herein combined in the high-powered and high-speed computing of a modern IT system to provide what you see in these glorious pictures. Please do click on and enjoy the sidebar pix to see the evolution of these graphics.

Some of those important dating elements include the latest iterations of the various (and growing) numbers of increasingly reliable and cross-supporting methodologies using micro-sampling and highly sophisticated micro-interrogation methods that leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the technologically open-minded and interested observer. within rational and stated limits of course, but certainly a lot better than "It's all only 6037 years old, when it all happened one afternoon!"

Breakthrough In Geological Dating Imminent

However, even this paper from 1999 (Zah oldt dayz!) shows the combination of at least 9 different methodologies to arrive at their careful conclusions (MZ levels, lithostratigraphy, dated geo-level placements, magneto-stratigraphy, Magnetic polarity shifts in iron-baring minerals, of course radio-isotopic dating, phytolithic stratigraphy, Argon/Argon and K-Argon dating.

Revised geochronology of the Casamayoran South American Land Mammal Age: Climatic and biotic implications — PNAS

Quite the array of cross-checks just to pinpoint a lone rodent tooth sample, huh? But nonetheless, to refute and casually dismiss it as "a biased and 'invented' lie", the refuter would REALLY have to do their techno-homework and present more than a "Nahhnahh-nahhh neener-neener" argument. Assuming they honestly intended to be credible....

(I'm all ears, BTW)

All of this just to pinpoint and clarify the confidently claimed ages of the evolution of changes in the rodent tooth structure under study as being valid and in the 35.34 - 36.62 Ma (Mega-annum = Million years) range. (I note the scientists here were only too happy to improve on previously older time determinations as the techniques are improved and of course, that relentless cross-checking is applied) But far-far-FAR from everything being a mere 6037+ years old of course.

Of course, (pause for a deep calming breath....) those who would rather not witness the truth are going to be limited in their appreciation of this work.
All of this is clearly explained in the bible.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:21 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top