Look.....I am sure your a good guy but you really have no idea of what you are talking about and neither does that moron pretending to be some Professor in the Video. I don't blame you for this ignorance....and the word IGNORANCE comes from the word IGNORE as in to IGNORE THE FACTS. So I am NOT trying to insult you. AA
That can be layer out in rapid erosion. They once dated the KBS tuff to be 300 million years old by similar dating methods (volcanic ash I believe) until they found a human skull under it. - - - Updated - - - I don't ignore the facts.
In this case you are. Think about this....... You do this experiment in a room kept at 32 degrees F. If you have a piece of ice that is 6 foot long by 6 foot wide and 3 feet thick......and in the center of this giant block of ice you have an empty cavity and you fill it with water. Then you use an air hose to force the water out of the cavity.....WHAT DOES THE WATER DO IF THIS HAPPENS RAPIDLY??? The water will flow out over the surface of the 6 foot by 6 foot block of ice and erode by both melting and friction a layer of the top ice that will gradually become less and less from the point of water ejection. If you take the same amount of water and just allow a tiny amount to leak out of a hose with the ice block inclined at the point of the water release....using the same amount of water......the water will begin and continue to cut a channel into the ice block. You REALLY need to first understand Hydrodynamics before discussing this. AboveAlpha
What I'm describing is a breached dam affect. Once the water goes over the top it erodes its way down the dam.
As the lake(s) rose they would lap up against the last part holding it until it finally spilled over. It'll be like a lake breaching over a dam.
Except there are places like the Atacama desert that have been extremely dry for millions of years, and yet without the pressure needed the surface, while hard, is not rock. Not rock.
Which is flawed. The KBS tuff for example was dated to be 300 million years old until someone found a human skull in (or under) it.
Evidence for the above. Please cite the journal that quoted the KBS tuff was dated at 300 million years old. Everything i've seen (from 1976 on), puts it at about 1.6-1.8 mya, with multiple radiometric methods converging on those times.
Aren't you exaggerating just a little here? Even Lubenow from AIG only claimed 220 million years. But it turned out that the error was with selecting samples from the volcanic ash, not with the dating process. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD031.html
http://creationwiki.org/KBS_Tuff_shows_the_flaws_of_radiometric_dating_(Talk.Origins) http://creation.mobi/how-dating-methods-work
I said it out of memory, your right it was 200 million. But the main point is they all agreed it was 200 million until they found the human skull. If it was really contamination then shouldn't they have spotted that before finding the skull?
Could you tell by looking at volcanic ash what particles were from the volcano and what was older sediment picked up in the process? It's really surprising how people who don't actually do science think it is so much easier than the people who actually do it. They even have a name for it now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
My two main points is this: 1. No matter how difficult it is/was to measure the ash layer they all still gave it the date of 200 million years 2. They settled on that date (why exactly?) until they found a human skull. Also this is kinda off topic.
Legitimate sources--i.e. scientific journals, please. Should be easy enough if the literature really said the KBS tuff was dated at 300 million years old. That should be easy to check in legitimate sources. I'm not reading creationist pseudo-science crap, since most of it is written by liars and cheats.
The citations are there for you to read. If you don't believe it then don't. Just because it comes from certain source doesn't automatically mean its false. That's an ad Hominem.
No, it's common sense. Ad hominem arguments can be correct. I don't read Infowars or Mother Jones either. I'm not going to read somebody else's crap to dig out the references. If you think the references are important, you dig them out and tell me directly, instead of just linking the lying pseudoscience crap. I find that creationists use distortions and half-truths to make their points, and as a Christian, I'm very offended that people that claim to also be Christian use such tactics.
Papers shouldn't stand the test of time. Science is ever changing based on new observations. It is the way science works. That's the real problem in this argument, is that science uses one set of rules and the lying pseudoscience uses a different set of rules.
Here's all the citations. And as a gun rights advocate I would even look at mother jones and debunk there claims if shown to me. http://www.earthage.org/radio/The Case of the KBS Tuff.htm
And the converse is also true - just because it comes from certain sources does not mean it is true There are people out there claiming all sorts of rubbish http://www.angelfire.com/stars3/breathe_light/breatharianism.html
