The dating game

Except that they don't. The depth of the snow or ice layer has nothing to do with the annual layer formation -- those are marked by different phenomena, different chemisty, and what you have been reading is a typical creatortionista shell game misrepresentation of the truth. They mix storm layers with annual layers. Why? Because they need to have the dating method be false. Nope, you missed again. The ice that falls\forms in the winter is different from what fall\forms in the summer -- see if you can find that detail. I suggest research from the scientific sources, not creatortionistas ...http://www.gsf.fi/esf_holivar/johnsen.pdf
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/mayews01.html
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf
Error 404: Page or Resource Not Found | NCEI
UniBE: Error
Just a moment...
Just a moment...
http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/...m05-1.hj/050113EPICA-e.htmlLet me know if you have any trouble with the articles (pdfs may take a while to load)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Is your typo intentional or accidental? Your article reference said "thousands", not "millions" (we don't have ice core sequences in the millions of years).But your creationwiki article gives no evidence even of thousands. It talks about thicknesses, and implies that this must equate to thousands of years. The thickness of these layers gets thinner and thinner as one goes down due to the increasing pressure.I think your YEC article is making an unwarranted uniformitarian assumption that the relation of ice thickness to time span is constant. It is not.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

There's a LOT of confusion here.1) "Uniformitarianism" vs "catastrophism" was a valid historical debate a century or so ago, restricted to discussions of geological processes. Uniformitarianism initially won out, but the modern picture is a combination of both. The impact event that killed the dinosaurs is an example. David Raup wrote a nice popular level book on this a few years back (Maybe The Nemesis Affair?). But this has little to do with modern dating methods. In fact, modern dating methods make the discussion moot because their dates do not depend on the rates of geological processes.
Note: the YEC application of "uniformitarianism" to all of science is just plain wrong. For most areas of science the term is irrelevant.2) Radiocarbon was initially based on "uniformitarian" assumptions (decay rate is constant, natural abundance ratio in upper atmosphere is constant). Further research has verified the first assumption, and given minor corrections to the second. Calibrating to tree ring dates avoids these uniformitarian assumptions, BTW.3) One's "uniformitarian philosophy" or religion does not change the facts or reliability of the dating methods.4) Some of the early developers of radiocarbon dating were evangelical Christians. They did not treat science as their god or idol.Edited by kbertsche, : clarified point 1.

No, it's not a red herring. It is how the assumption of uniformitarianism is justified. When different independent methods give the same answers, either the assumptions are correct, or we are witnessing a remarkable set of coincidences. For some reason, creationists prefer to believe the world is filled with remarkable, unexplainable coincidences.- Huh? What are you talking about? You and your link are questioning this method of dating. You are confused.- Huh? Who dated the airplanes? Not even your link claimed that anyone dated the airplanes. Your link just talks about the planes being buried under a lot of ice.- Because they can actually observe the movement of the ice.- Sure. Because the assumption of uniformitarianism matches with actual observations.Here is one abstract about volcanic ash found in an ice core in Greenland. The minerology of the ash is very similar to ash taken from a sediment core in the Atlantic. If the uniformitarian assumption is correct, then the two dates of these ash deposits should match. There's no other reason why these two different dating methods should give the same ages.And the ages do match up. Just as the uniformitarian assumption predicts. To a creationist, this is another amazing coincidence among a huge number of coincidences that a creationist must accept. To someone with a little bit of sense, though, this is not surprising. One can count annual layers in the ice. One can use oxygen isotope dating to date layers in ocean sediment cores. And, seeing how these two methods agree with each other (and with examples in other dating methods), it appears that our confidence in our assumptions are justified.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Your absolutely right.

There are so many ways to try and tell how old something is, but because it is in the past and out of the reach of observable science, it can never be considered absolute fact.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset to eliminate signature spam.

See subtitle.I've left your homepage link alone, although it doesn't seem to actually lead to a valid site.Usually members trying to do such signature spam are permanently suspended. I'm giving you a break in that you might actually also be here for reasons other than spamming.Behave yourself.NO REPLIES TO THIS MESSAGE, UNLESS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A 24 HOUR (OR LONGER) SUSPENSION.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Some wirkkalaj The Age of the Earth material elsewhere.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

quote:

---

It says that Potasium-argon does not work for recent dates. I wonder, why not? why only for ages older than 100kya?

---

Because it has a long half-life. Not enough Argon will have accumulated for an accurate reading. It is intended for measuring things millions and billions of years old, not thousands.

quote:

---

A similar question for radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon dating is only useful for a maximum date of 100,000 why is it that when dating anything older we would get "back nonsense numbers"?

---

Usually I think its from creationists contaminating the sample.Radiocarbon, like all things, does not work in all situations or all circumstances. Honest researchers are aware of this, therefore they avoid carbon dating things that are likely to give inaccurate results. Creationists on the other hand will rush to carbon date things like 45 million year old petrified 'wood.'
Also, its the ratio of C12 to C14 that is important. If you date something millions of years old and say that you found carbon there, that doesn't mean anything.
Also, implying that radiocarbon dating doesn't work when tested in situations where it is not meant to work is like saying computers don't work because you just threw one in a volcano and it doesn't turn on anymore.

I wouldn't count on a reply - Reserve hasn't visited more recently than almost three years ago.--Percy

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content.

we should be able to use it on anything that is 200 years or older.
RS Gold
Cheapest WOW Gold
Buy World Of Warcraft Goldtera4sale.com supports spam.zyy.com supports spam.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle, nuke spam links, add message.

This might be a good thread for me to seek some information from those who know. The lack of radioisotopes with half-lives less than about 80,000,000 years on the Earth is good evidence that it has to be billions of years old. The usual YEC explanation is there was a period of rapid decay at Creation and during and/or after the Flood. I believe the short-lived isotopes are observed to appear and disappear as expected in supernovae. My question is :- have the same radioisotopes been observed to be absent in the Sun and in Moon rocks? If so this would mean YEC would have to explain why Sun and Moon were affected by the Flood's episode of rapid decay. Are the isotopes with shorter half-lives e.g. 1 My able to be observed in younger stars? If so that would suggest the Sun did not have to be made without them. Thanks to any who can enlighten me. As a related thought I wonder if isotope abundance is how a star is determined to be young.

Technetium is present in some Red Giant stars that are actively dredging up material from their interiors - where fresh technetium is being synthesized by nuclear reactions. Googling "solar technetium" turns up some very old references that raise the possibility of some in the Sun, but more, later references that say probably the spectral lines are misassigned. The Moon doesn't seem to have any.Some Cretinists claim the the "accelerated nuclear decay" was during their Creation Week - so they will just say that the Sun and Moon were made without Tc or were subject to accelerated decay as well.

Hi,Welcome to My Candy Love, my name is john walker and I'm here to show you how the game works.Candy love is a online dating game. Are you ready? for Love Game,Kissing Games and Dating Sim.Edited by Admin, : Spamify the links.

Edited by Admin, : Hide spam text, spamify links.