Would ID/Creationists need new, independant dating techniques??

Well you brought it up. If factoring in this model is an important part of creationist techniques, then saying what the model is and what the evidence is for it would seem to be important. After all, in this same post you go on to write ... You see? You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't use this "model" to bolster you arguments and then not discuss what the model is and how it would affect dating.What if we started doing that? A creationist raises what he thinks is a problem with some aspect of real science. "Oh," we reply, "that's all explained by the process of confustibilation." Naturally enough, he then asks: "What's confustibilation, and how does it answer my argument?"And then, if we were like you, we'd answer: "That's off topic and we refuse to discuss it."It's not off-topic if we're invoking it as the answer to a question which is on-topic. It is then part of the topic.

Hey Buz,I see the good Dr. has done an adequate job of fielding my question.
Just to be sure, have you not read through RAZD's post yet on age correlations of an old earth?

quote:

---

The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.

​

The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).

---

If this were a one time change, due to a one time flood, there would be a brake in the length of day from the period before the flood to that following the flood. Also why the coincidental agreement with our current understanding of geology based upon the geologic column and ages revealed through radiometric dating?'Have to run, I'm missing Jessi Ventura's conspiracy theories..

I've explained why the flood model premise would not be compatible to conventional dating data. I've cited some reasons which none of you people are refuting. For example, true or false; would a global Genesis flood model, factoring in other Genesis data and observeable physical evidence, such as tropical stuff in the arctics, etc, interpreted on that hypothetical model implicate a non-uniform atmosphere and earth surface?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

No.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

That would depend on the model.If you can show us a model and demonstrate that it would, the question would then be --- how would this affect dating?Remember that in real science the global climate, the composition of the atmosphere, and the surface of the Earth have all undergone changes, and that this does not affect the dating techniques used ... so I don't see why an imaginary cause of the same effects should behave any differently.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

How would your bullshit model affect Ar-Ar dating? how does this model cause Ar-Ar dating to be in error and yet still agree with other methods, show your math or remain full of shit.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Well thank you for at least clarifying an answer. Every other YEC I have spoken to has completely avoided the subject, and for good reason I think.Now on to the dating methods, as drjones pointed out, every current correlative dating method would need to be shown to be false. I've read a lot of the literature about 'accelerated radioactive decay' and all that nonsense and seen it refuted many times.So in truth I think it would be very easy for a YEC to use correlative dating methods to prove the literal genisis, especially the flood, 100% correct.Find the flood layer. Everything under it is pre-flood, everything on top is post-flood. So everything post-flood; every fossil, every piece of organic material, EVERYTHING, would be 4350 years or younger.Now this is what I don't understand Buz. Why do YEC try their hardest, and spend so much time and effort trying to refute things such as the geological column, evolution, cosmology, aboigenisis and so forth, when all they need to do to show they are correct is this rather easy bit of science?For instance, there is a website called Tas Walkers Bibical Geology where he has obviously spent a lot of time trying to get the geological column to fit in with the genisis account. And yet when it comes to dating, all he talks about is problems with the current dating methods.I'm sure it would serve the YEC a lot more to actually use science to strengthen their position instead of refuting it...or has it not been done because, shock horror, they have no dating methods that actually fit in with the 4350-year-old flood timeline.

What Buz probably doesn't realize, and nobody's pointred out, is that his hypothesized pre-flood differences would leave traces, and those traces have been dsought and aren't there. For example, any creationist who has any measure of a clue abourt thermodynamics has abandoned any form of the vapor canopy because of all the many ways it's inconsistent with terrestrial life.

... has long ago returned to his home planet on the back of his wingd pig.

Buz knows perfectly well that his "point" is simply a baseless assertion that exists solely as an excuse for ignoring the evidence. He has been tackled on this point time and time again - usually running away from the question and NEVER offering any valid reason to think his claim might be true.

Hi Slevesque!I'm just now catching up in this thread, this is from something you posted a few days ago: When I build sand castles I can get an angle of repose of wet sand of 90 degrees and even greater. When you said wet sand, did you mean completely submerged sand under water?--Percy

Your reference is locked behind a paydoor. If you provide more information perhaps it can be found elsewhere. Now I'm getting confused. Weren't you arguing that fossil sand dunes found in places like the Coconino Sandstone layer of the Grand Canyon were actually formed underwater? And isn't the angle of sand dunes in that layer up to 34 degrees? And aren't you arguing that submerged sand dunes can only have angles up to 30 degrees? Doesn't that rule out a submerged origin for the Coconino layer?--Percy

Going back to my previous question, what methodologies do creationists use to date these ice formations? Or are they simply asserted to be of recent formation without any evidence whatsoever?

Aesop's Fables clearly implicate that animals can talk. So what.What we are asking for is the dating methologies that imply a young earth. What are they?

It is your assertion so it is up to you to evidence it. Please show how this vapor canopy produces the evidence we see, such as the U/Pb ratios we see in zircons or the K/Ar ratios that we see in meteorites.