Summations Only

The problem is that it's not all one continuous layer.ABE: Note that there's no evidence proffered for that claim.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Clams that grew where they are found are very different from clams that were transported. Leonardo da Vinci figured that out over 500 years ago. You're a little behind.

Oh, yeah, that's the wackiest YEC thing I have seen in decades. I've occasionally thought of trying to figure out the stresses involved in picking up a huge slab that the Fludde couldn't pick up all over simultaneously. Not to mention the issues of the difficulty of getting an upward force from the water and maintaining essentially constant upward pressure during the transport.But Faith would handwave away any discussion of the problems.

We are talking about your claim of entire formations being transported as a unit. The formation would not move without a force holding it up. Newton figured that one out. Water and sediment flowing over the land exert only a downward force. Plus the upward force would have to be essentially constant over the entire formation throughout the process or the formation would break up.

Berthault's experiments were in flumes in which the distance between the walls was small enough to have a significant effect. There is good reason to question their applicability to open water.

Did you notice that experiments in a confined flume are not applicable to open water?

And, of course, it never occurred to you to look. Berthault's "Stratigraphy" : Rediscovering What Geologists Already Know and Strawman Misrepresentations of Modern Applications of Steno's Principles Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix link (it had a " at the end).

A flume is tightly confined by walls.A global flood is not.Walls and the floor make a huge difference. They confine the flow to one direction. No cross-currents. No vertical component of flow. Boundary layers on both sides and on the bottom.I realize that you have no clue what a boundary layer is or it's effects. Reality "knows". Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends in why you get different ages. If the investigator is a YEC, it's nearly certain without further investigation that the different results are the result of fraud or misrepresentation. Details on request. Sorry, the amount of disagrement between methods is minuscule. Tens of thousands of measurements, maybe hundreds of thousands. How many unexplained disagreements was that again?

Free sample, my personal favorite creationist fraud.Andrew Snelling wrote two articles on it, one for the sheeple and one "technical". In the latter, but not the former he gave away the gaff, and all you need to know is that "whole rock" means the entire rock, not any individual mineral from the rock, and "xenolith", literally foreign rock, means a piece of an older rock that didn't melt embedded in a younger rock. ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING":

quote:

---

A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating

​

...

​

The potassium and argon analyses were undertaken at Geochron Laboratories under the direction of Richard Reesman, the K-Ar laboratory manager. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as andesites that probably contained "low argon" and therefore could be young, so as to ensure the laboratory took extra care with the analytical work.

​

Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverising preparatory work.

​

...

​

Steiner [90] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey [7] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.

​

...

​

Xenoliths are present in the Ngauruhoe andesite flows (Table 3), but they are minor and less significant as the location of the excess 40Ar* residing in these flows than the plagioclase and pyroxene phenocrysts, and the much larger glomerocrysts of plagioclase, pyroxene, or plagioclase and pyroxene that predominate. The latter are probably the early-formed phenocrysts that accumulated together in the magma within its chamber prior to eruption of the lava flows. Nevertheless, any excess 40Ar* they might contain had to have been supplied to the magma from its source. The xenoliths that are in the andesite flows have been described by Steiner [90] as gneissic, and are therefore of crustal origin, presumably from the basement rocks through which the magma passed on its way to eruption.

---

TL : DR version:Snelling dated a mixture of old and new material and expressed amazement that the date came out as older than the new material. Duh. He presented no data for his claim that the xenoliths were not important.{Also he could have used the much more robust Ar-Ar method, and/or extracted samples of the new material if possible and likely gotten a valid result)

Uncontaminated fossils that are older than the limit of 14C dating do not produce a date.All of the several fossils creationists have "dated" were either known to be contaminated or extremely likely to be contaminated. In most cases the creationists knew they were contaminated. E.g. Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones?

quote:

---

CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History "by disguising the nature of the creationist science group" (Lafferty 1991:2B) and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. James King, Director of the Carnegie Museum, says Hugh Miller and his party identified themselves as chemists who wanted to do some analysis of the chemical composition of the fossils. King says that small "bits and pieces" which had spalled off the surfaces of various specimens were offered to Miller with the explicit warning that the fossil bones had been "covered heavily in shellac" and other "unknown preservatives." Miller accepted the fragments and indicated that the coatings posed no problems for the analyses they were considering. Subsequently, several of the bone fragments were submitted to the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry for radiocarbon dating. CRSEF "also arranged the Arizona testing by not revealing its origins" (Lafferty 1991:2B). Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless.

---

Basically, every geological method takes advantage of some information other than the decay formula.The methods du jour are U-Pb and Ar-Ar.U-Pb dates a sample by two decay chains (235U and 238U). If the dates are the same ("concordant") that's strong evidence that the date is correct. Here the extra information is that the final element in the chain, lead, doesn't fit in the lattice physically or elictrically so the initial daughter product is zero.Ar-Ar is an extension of the simple K-Ar method. First the sample is irradiated to convert 40K to 39Ar. That allows convenient and precise measurements of the ratio of 40Ar/39Ar, involving only one element. Then the sample is heated in a series of temperature steps and a date is calculated for each step. If they are all the same that's a good date.Both methods can often produce a valid date even if the multiple measurements don't agree, but that's more complex.

Well, they claimed to have found issues.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The laws of physics constrain the attributes of waves. Especially when the depth of the water is much smaller than the wavelength.You can try to conjure up your looooooong waves, but they couldn't exist in this universe.

What jumble of bones where? Mainstream geology and paleontology have no problem with a few catastrophies. Your Fludde should produce one worldwide jumble of bones of all possible animals.