Well then maybe you should discuss this w/ DevNet (see post 54) and get one or both of your stories corrected. And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.
Oooh - and please don’t forget to explain how all the layering that represents just one volcanic eruption differs from all other layering worldwide where each layer represents much longer time spans.
Is anyone else getting dizzy from all this circular logic?
“Well then maybe you should discuss this w/ DevNet (see post 54) and get one or both of your stories corrected. And then explain all the age-dating anomolies found w/ the recent Mount St. Helens eruption.”
—I’m not positive, but I believe DevNet may have been referring to xenoliths. Lava flow may contain rocks dragged up from within the earth that haven’t melted, which are called xenoliths. Since such rocks are just random rocks dragged up, they can be of thousounds, or millions, or billions of years old, while the lava they are contained in is very young. Fortunately, such xenoliths are easy to spot (thus the name - “xenolith” - foreign or strange rock that sticks out like a sore thumb).
When you were talking about the million year old rocks found in 200 year old lava, were you referring to the study done in Hawaii using K-Ar dating? IIRC, that was a study done specifically to date xenoliths. The xenoliths SHOULD date much older than the lava flow, since the xenoliths ARE rocks while the lava hasn’t hardened into rock yet - so by definition, the xenoliths must be older.
I believe the layering you are referring to from St. Helens are the layers of unsolidated ash from the pyroclastic flow. It was well known that volcanoes can create many layers of such ash in a single eruption long before 1980. Other examples of such are known around the world, such as Cathedral Rock in Oregon, which has many layers put down instantly from an eruption millions of years ago. The difference between these layers and other layers is, well, these are just layers of volcanic ash. If there was a layer of limestone in there, and a layer of shalestone imbedded with fossils and footprints, than that would be interesting.
The astute reader will note that I explained these so-called "anomalies" to BrandMichaels back in May, in this post, and even provided him with numerous links to further documentation, and yet now here he is pretending that he has never been made aware of how the creationists manage to dishonestly produce these "anomalies"... Why do you suppose that might be?
Oooh - and please don’t forget to explain how all the layering that represents just one volcanic eruption differs from all other layering worldwide where each layer represents much longer time spans.
It differs from *some* other volcanic eruptions, but not from "all other layering worldwide" -- not every volcanic eruption is completely identical to all others. Duh. Some are fast, some are slow, some are massive, some are on a small scale, some produce mostly ash, some produce huge amounts of lava, etc. Geologists study each historical flow to determine what particular kind it was and how long it took.
This is all taught in Geology 101 -- you know, the same junior-high level class where they teach that rock formation has been ongoing during the life of the planet, and is still taking place today, a very elementary and basic fact you appear to be totally unaware of, given your jaw-droppingly uninformed post #67 in this thread...
Look, if you're going to attempt to find a flaw in modern science, wouldn't it help if you bothered to *learn* some first? If perhaps you managed to miss basic science in school somehow, for pete's sake, there's still WIkipedia to fill in the huge gaps in your knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_of_rocks
I mean, at least try to learn as much as the average 14-year-old... That'd put you at least two years ahead of the average anti-evolutionist, in my long experience. The vast majority of them are grossly ignorant of the fields they attempt to attack; I am constantly having to explain even the easy stuff to them, introduce them to the kind of thing most grade-schoolers already know. The few others know better but are grossly dishonest (e.g. Austin).
Is anyone else getting dizzy from all this circular logic?
Just yours and that of a lot of other anti-science creationists.