|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Also, I was reading recently that some stone tools used by early humans have been dated at hundreds of thousands of years old. I concur with what Pollux said about radiocarbon dating probably being used on the organic components of the cave art. I wouldn't think that the stone of the stone tools would itself be radiometrically dated, since all that would give us would be when that stone had last solidified. Rather, tools and other non-organic artifacts would probably be associated with a period of habitation in that cave, which in turn would be determined by radiocarbon dating of associated organic remains such as a camp fire at that same level. Radiocarbon dating would not work for associated remains hundreds of thousands years old, so the dating of the layer containing those tools would have to be used. Notice the emphasis on layers containing the artifacts and of them being associated with organic remains (where C14 dating is feasible) which are in the same layer. Everything in the same layer should have been buried at about the same time, so once you can determine the age of the layer then you have the age of the artifacts in that layer. This is why it is so important to keeping meticulous track of the exact location where something was found in a dig, be it archaeological or paleontological. In many cases, the only way you can date a find is through the layer in which it is found. That is why if you find a fossil or an artifact, then one of the worst things you could do is to remove it from its rock matrix and take it to a scientist; you have just destroyed valuable evidence as surely as if you had trampled through a crime scene handling everything. Those are some general considerations. Articles about that cave or those stone tools should have more information to tell you how those dates were determined. Or the articles' bibliographies should point you to more primary sources containing that information you seek. Or if your question is more generally how do they do that, then articles or textbooks about those practices should inform you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Most geology dates are reached by dating igneous layers. These can sandwich particular fossil layers to give a date for them which could be applied elsewhere. That's an important point that deserves more discussion. Radiometric dating is largely restricted to igneous rock and can only date when that rock was last fully molten. A good source of how that works is Chris Stassen's talkorigins article, Isochron Dating. But how does that work for sedimentary rock? I remember pondering that question and I found an answer in a textbook. First, you have the Law of Superposition in which younger layers of rock sit on top of older layers, such that you can work out the age relative ages of the layers with respect to each other. In addition, you can use distinguishing characteristics of layers to identify them at other locations. Then you have igneous intrusions in those layers which can be dated with radiometric methods. The textbook I read called them "tie points". When it's an igneous layer (eg, a layer of ash from a volcanic eruption or a lava flow on the surface), then once you get its age you know that the layers under it are older than that date and the layers above it are younger. If it's a vertical intrusion through sedimentary layers, then you know that those layers are older than that intrusion. If that intrusion then ends with a surface flow then you know the ages of the layers sandwiching that as in the ash layer/surface flow. If it's a horizontal intrusion, then you know that the layers above and below are older than that flow. Et cetera. Those igneous tie points allow you to bracket in onto the ages of sedimentary rocks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
But sedimentary rock consists of small particles of rock from here, there and everywhere, which means those particles could vary greatly in age. So how can the age of the sedimentary rock that fossils are found in be determined with any accuracy? I already explained that directly to you nearly a year ago: Message 263, 11-Oct-2022 7:42 PM. You even thanked me for the information (Message 264) which led to further discussion (ie, actual discussion, a rarity with you). So here it is AGAIN! From Message 263:
dwise1 writes:
Then from the subsequent discussion, in Message 270:
dwise1 writes: Dredge writes: Furthermore, I imagine sedimentary rock could contain a mish-mash of particles of vastly varying ages - ... Correct in general, but there's are a few things to keep in mind. BTW, the next thing you wrote alerted me to the need for the following:
So then, yes, the ages of individual particles within a sedimentary layer would be a vastly varying mish-mash. But we do know that all those ages have to be greater than the age of the new layer composed of those particles. Often vastly older.
BTW, a few decades ago I had the same question, so I looked into it and did a little research. That was all it took to answer my own question, by learning. I even told you about that too in Message 265:
dwise1 writes: It's all common knowledge. Plus things that one can work out based on how things work. Or asking the right questions and then researching for the answer. Anybody who has given it any serious thought would have come up with the same. For example, while driving up to Lake Arrowhead (going from an elevation of 100 ft to one mile) for a father-son event, I was regarding the exposed roadside geology on display when a question occurred to me:
Since sedimentary layers (of which I was seeing a lot) consists of older rock that had been ground up and recycled, exactly how are they dated? I mean, if you date them directly, then you should get a much older age because they consist of much older rock, right?
Since at that time (1994) we were just beginning to get access to the Internet, we didn't have the online resources yet, so I hit the university library. That is when I learned about the use of igneous layers and intrusions as "tie points". The purpose of questions is to point us to the direction for finding the answer. And in science the best thing you can find in that answer is more questions. That way, we find paths to keep learning. Using questions in order to intimidate or prevent discussion or to otherwise weaponize them is a serious abuse. That is how creationists typically abuse questions. So sad that you are incapable of learning on your own. But at least you are starting to ask some of the right questions, though sadly it's undoubtedly solely for your trolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
Creationism: ask => answered => forget => repeat It's not just forgetfulness, but rather a feature of creationism. Creationism (ie, the anti-evolution movement that uses lies and deception in a vain attempt to disprove reality) is far more than just a collection of false claims. Rather, it is a set of positions and fundamental assertions and assumptions which must remain true or else the entire position (and the follower's faith) will collapse. Of course, those fundamental assertions et alia are not true, so creationists are forever in peril, making them all the more desperate. One of those fundamental assertions is that scientists are idiots who don't know what they are doing and who adhere dogmatically to flimsy assumptions. We see this all the time in their "challenges" and "exposés" of dating methods, et alia. And it is very telling that their "questions" require extensive training and intimate familiarity with current research to be able to answer, and yet they always direct those questions to rank laymen, to the "man on the street", who would possess neither the requisite training nor experience. Their goal of deceiving their opponents and audience is blatantly obvious. Why not approach actual scientists with their "questions"? Because scientists would immediately recognize them as bullshit. For example, in the early 1970's Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research gave a presentation at the US Geological Survey (details in the Foreword of Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth). That presentation led to a lot of lively responses which consisted mainly of trying to explain to the creationists what they were misunderstanding about thermodynamics. You cannot say that creationists never learn: they learned to avoid ever talking with scientists again. The fundamental position here is their assertion that "no scientist has ever been able to answer these questions." Even after being presented with those "non-existent answers", the creationist is left with either ignoring the answers, discounting them, or simply turn around and forget them. We have seen a lot of that! I think that Dredge's question is one that he has in stock to baffle the opposition (ie, man on the street) with and it would work against most. But this forum has a lot of shared experience with creationist claims, so we're not the usual civilians that he has grown to expect. He may have had an honest question there, but experience has taught us to suspect that assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
To expand the question a bit, why can't you investigate and inform yourself on an issue before raising it here, and why do you repeatedly ask questions that have already been answered? Why not engage and challenge the answers? For the same reason that no creationist ever does: They do not expect any answer and indeed depend on not receiving any answer. It is an integral part of their modulus operandi. Their "questions" are meant to be unanswerable. In 1970, hitting your opponent or intended victim with unanswerable questions was an integral part of the Jesus Freak training materials for proselytizing and it still serves in that role. Hit your victim with a question that he cannot answer is intended to weaken him, make him doubt his own position, and soften him up for conversion. In the case of a opponent, the intent is to discredit him in front of an audience whom you would hope to convert later in a mopping-up operation. Or at the very least, use that tactic to bolster the false beliefs of your fellow fundies and creationists. Not only is an actual answer to your question the last thing you would expect, but it would also neutralize your argument. And of course it doesn't help that you yourself have no clue what your question is about, so when your opponent/intended victim then wants to discuss your question, you are completely unable to comply. Supporting my thesis is the simple direct observation that they always direct their unanswerable questions to the wrong audience for an answer. If they actually wanted an answer to a question, then they would have asked an expert on that subject. Instead, they do everything they can to avoid any expert. Another example of creationists always asking the wrong people was local YEC activist Bill Morgan's use of a claim involving the depletion of the ozone layer (see my page about our email exchange, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER). This one is curious and telling in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, but rather is a naked attack on science and the integrity of scientists (much like candle2's recent rants about "scientific hoaxes" PRATTs) claiming that scientists based their blaming refrigerants in the upper atmosphere solely on lab experiments when in reality it was the use of sounding rockets gathering air samples directly from the upper atmosphere that contained those refrigerant molecules. The claim came with a set of questions "that scientists could not answer", but those questions appear verbatim from a NOAA study which also answered every single one, as I describe on my web page. In his telling of the claim, Morgan took those questions directly to "the experts on atmospheric dynamics", air conditioning salesmen at a trade show (I shit thee not!). Of course they couldn't answer his question, which would not have been the case had he gone to actual atmospheric scientists, but if he had then they would have also informed him of what utter bullshit his claim was. That same lesson was learned by Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish as I recounted in my Message 80 (20-Apr-2022):
dwise1 writes: In the foreword to his book on dating methods, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple, research geologist at the United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, tells the story of when leading ICR creationists Drs. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) and Duane Gish (PhD Biochemistry) came to USGS Menlo Park in 1975 to give an evening seminar on their case for creationism to several hundred USGS scientists. Their presentation sparked a lot of discussion, most of which consisted of scientists who did understand the science trying to explain to Morris & Gish what thermodynamics really is and to help correct Morris & Gish's gross misunderstanding of the subject. Morris & Gish did learn from that encounter, but it was the wrong lesson: after that ICR creationists knew better than to ever discuss anything with actual scientists. Obviously, since actual scientists understand the science then they can see through creationist bullshit lies immediately. If Dredge had actually wanted to learn something by getting an actual answer to his question, then he would have sought out an expert instead of only tossing it out in a forum. He didn't do so, so he didn't want to. And when he did get an answer, he didn't know what to do except to become obsequious (ie, turn to fawning behavior) in an effort to disengage by "smiling me out the door" only to repeat his misconduct later on when he thought I wasn't looking and the rest of us had forgotten that his "question" had already been answered and acknowledged.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024