256
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 150:
Line 150: − + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth (view source)
Revision as of 12:58, June 5, 2010
, 12:58, June 5, 2010→Lakes again
: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.
: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?
: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)
== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==
== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==