|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,626 Year: 948/6,935 Month: 229/719 Week: 17/204 Day: 1/16 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Light Time Problem | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
You want source and proof?
Here it is. jar's link is to the Onyate Man "find", a complete human fossil (though significantly missing one foot) caught in the midst of being swallowed by a T. Rex (or some such similar dinosaur). The moment that Kent Hovind heard about Onyate Man (follow ) he used it in one of his "seminar" presentations. In Alcalde, NM, when they erected a statue of conquistador Juan de Oñate, somebody cut off his foot. His claim to infamy was ruthlessly putting down an Indian revolt and reportedly ordering that every man over the age of 25 have one foot cut off:
quote Never forget.Edited by dwise1, : more on Oñate Edited by dwise1, : fleshed out my quick response
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
You forget that he's hanging upside down in Australia.
He doesn't know up from down, let alone which way is up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
As usual, you ignore the whole picture.
Of course your pathological willful stupidity will keep you from learning, so this is for others who will read this (eg, online right now are four members and 153 visitors):
But I guess general geological patterns emerge, which is where index fossils come into play. Since you are a creationist, I can smell this typical stupid creationist "objection" coming: "Fossils are dated by their layers and layers are dated by their fossils, so it's nothing but circular reasoning." No, that is most definitely not true. We see above how layers are dated.Index fossils are just one means of identifying which layer we're looking at, plus those index fossils are very common ones and not the ones we're dating. I explained that before to candle2 in this same topic, my Message 36 reply to his Message 30 (actually, your Message 258 that spawn your current fit of confusion was a "reply" to that same Message 36, excerpted here with a few typographical corrections):
DWise1 writes: candle2 writes: Also, fossils are dated by the strata that theyare found in, and the strata is dated by the fossils they contain. Yes, and? By the way you say that means that you are insinuating circular reasoning. Same dishonest creationist lie, hasn't changed a bit. Radiometric dating on rock is how long ago it solidified from being molten. Radiometric dating cannot be performed on sedimentary rock since it is ground down and recycled older rock, so radiometric dating would just get the age of bits of old rock tested. However, we can tell which layers are older than others by the order in which they are stacked. We can also establish dates for layers from igneous intrusions which bracket them in. Therefore we can determine the age of a particular layer. Fossils cannot be dated directly (excluding organic specimens). For one thing, if you melt the fossil in order to "restart its clock", then you have destroyed that fossil -- if it's a fossil, it hasn't been melted, so no radiometrically dating a fossil. Fossils result from burial and so are most commonly found in sedimentary rock, but we can arrive at a date for the layer it's found in as described above (extremely important that you don't just pull a fossil out of the ground and carry it to a museum). So how do we identify a layer here to be part of that other layer way over there?In geology it's done with identifying characteristics which have been determined empirically, which includes index fossils. However, many of those index fossils are microscopic, eg diatom shells which evolve over time. Fossils such as the ones that we are interested in (eg, dinos) are not used as index fossils. Thus the fossils identifying the stratum (from which we know its age) are not the same as the fossils that get their age from which stratum they're in. There is no circular reasoning here. Hope I was able to nip that one in the bud. But then you do never fail to disappoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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.
... - for example, some particles could be only thousands of years old while other particles could be billions of years old. If not for your protestations that you are an OEC and not a YEC, I would say that it looks suspiciously like you are trying to set up a YEC claim. No, "only thousands of years old" is very unlikely. The time it would have taken for each step of the process taken sequentially as I delineated it above would have to have been far greater than that. I think you may be getting too close to veering off the road and into the weeds there. Keep your eyes on the road, your hand upon the wheel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
No YEC claim will be forthcoming. Always good to hear
Thanx for the information. Very interesting. What? You're starting to learn? Quick! What's weather report in Hell? Any frost warnings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6187 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
I'm not familiar with the "Miller Tale" -- if it had been mentioned in this topic or elsewhere on this forum, please point it out.
Basically, this Miller had done what other creationists had done: grossly abuse dating methods in order to get "bad results". I remember one YouTube video with commentary of an "interview" with Kent Hovind where he discussed the "bad results" from a C14 test on a dinosaur fossil -- the commentator kept shouting over the video, "There's no f**king carbon!" A common tactic in this form of creationist deception is as you point out: using the wrong dating method. A common refutation of this trick is to point out that we weigh ourselves with a bathroom scale, our letters with a postage scale, and our vehicles and 18-wheel trucks plus trailer with truck scales. Assuming indestructible scales, I could prove that my Honda hybrid (a bit over 3000 lb) weighs only 400 lb by weighing it on a bathroom scale, that I myself (180 lb) weigh less than a pound by weighing myself on a postage scale, and that a 10-lb package I want to mail doesn't weigh anything at all by weighing it on a truck scale. Creationists like to declare a "gotcha" when the lab asks what age range you think it is (plus other questions the creationists don't mention or even know about) because that will tell them which test to perform first -- if the test pegs out at either extremely end of the scale then that tells them to use a test with another more appropriate scale (think about measuring a voltage with a multimeter where you start a too-high voltage so as to not damage its D'Arsonval movement by pegging it and then working down through progressive smaller voltage scales). While most creationists have no clue what they are doing, there are also those who do know. I don't know whether Miller knew about the shellac, but a creationist who did know about the need to prevent contamination of a radiocarbon dating sample with other organic material would knowingly use that to get the "bad results" that he wanted. An example of that is Dr. Steve Austin, PhD Geology, (AKA "Stuart Nevins", his pseudonym writing "geology based" creationist articles while being paid by the ICR to earn his PhD Geology -- they wanted to have an actual PhD Geology on their staff). His schooling taught him about radiometric dating methods and the kinds of conditions that can lead to bad results -- those kinds of conditions were not discovered by creationists, but rather by practicing scientists testing their methods in order to discover anything to look out for. So actually trained creationists know what to look for to get the "bad results" that they want, as Dr. Austin did at the Grand Canyon. A similar problem involves trying to apply radiocarbon dating to sea life. Radiocarbon dating depends on atmospheric C14 being incorporated into plant life and from there into the food chain (NOTE: only plants "breathe in" carbon, but animals don't -- they exhale it as carbon dioxide -- so animals can only get their C14 by eating plants or plant-eaters). Very little atmospheric C14 makes it into the oceans, so most of the carbon in the oceans' food chains are "old carbon" with far lower C14 levels than terrestrial life of the same age would contain. Examples very often cited by creationists include:
This next one comes from a recent NOVA episode which described an archeological dig in England to find a massive Viking encampment for which we have historical evidence. They were able to find human remains from that time, but those remains radiocarbon dated to be about 200 years older. The solution to that was to remember that they depended on fish for a lot of their protein. And fish are chock full of protein, essential Omega-3 oils, and ... (wait for it ... wait for it) ... old carbon. A reminder for candle2 and his ilk: animals (which includes us despite all your contrary theology) acquire their C14 through their food, not from the air. A day or so again in another topic, candle2 started railing again about "flaws in dating", mainly triggered by false claims he had previously made about radiocarbon dating. That is the main reason for this, my reply. I hope that candle2 will read this and finally present what he thinks are the "flaws in radiocarbon dating". Not only am I not going to hold my breathe, I'm not even going to go out and buy any microwave popcorn for that show.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025