Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 1 of 300 (269330)
12-14-2005 5:39 PM


Since dating has become a big issue there I think it would help to pull that out and put it here.
The Golfer refused to take the hint so I am picking up his last post and using it here along with my answers.
Ned, I agree if you have an object sandwiched between two layers it suggests something to an evolutionists. Some creationists agree with you that Carbon in mineralized fossils can be dated between your sandwiched layers. The carbon ratio in a controversal mineralized wood fossil found in an Australia coal mine directly dated by C-14 suggests a problem with sandwich dating. I know that evolutionists don't trust dating of carbon that has been mineralized, yet just as amazing they apparently trust varve dating.
The carbon discussion here has nothing to do with the main point. If something is sandwhiched between two undisturbed layers why would you think that it's date isn't between the dates of those layers? That is the question you were asked.
If you wish to make statments about particular pieces of evidence that you think you have then you have to supply the reference to them so that we may look at them.
Even without knowing what Australian C-14 date you are refering to I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the sandwich question. Please explain.
Creationists likely will disagree with varve dating because of the mineralized carbonate contamination that the evolutionists believe contaminated the infamous mineralized australian wood fossil.
What does that have to do with the varve dating? You had better explain your understanding of it. I think you should read the correlations thread in the dating forum. You aren't making sense.
If you believe in varve dating then you need to re-look at your belief in the australian wood fossil. It suggests a big problem with sandwich dating or more correctly with indirect dating of any inorganic layer to determine a fossils age.
To quote the late, great Lawence Welk: "A onea, A twoa, ...". Varves are counted!
Do NOT continue to bring up references to things that you haven't pointed to the evidence for. I will continue to ignore your Ozzie wood until you give some useful information regarding it.
Are not bacteria and insects capable of digesting the wood because the carbon does rot(gets carted away as lunch)? Right
So what? And does this occur in all samples? How do you know?
If one can not trust marine fossil dating for living creatures due to the carbonate problem how can one trust varve dating where organics are contaminated for large periods of time. You do believe wood rots and Carbon gets carted away for lunch. Don't you agree that the C-14 is translocated in the natural?
Who says they are contaminated? Explain how they correlate with the varve count. Until you explain the correlation you are simple making up crap. It doesn't matter if the carbon gets carted away. Do you know why? If you don't know why then why do you think you are qualified to critize this.
I'll even agree that tree ring dating is likely calibrated to one annual varve per year. If trees averaged two annual rings like some creationists believe (spring and fall) then the 12,000 years becomes 6,000 years if C-14 is calibrated to tree rings.
But not all try rings do come two a year. In fact almost none do. How do you explain the good agreement across lots of species, locations, times and the correlation with other dating methods including historic events? If you can't explain that you are making up crap.
The dating methods of the evolutionists is the whole basis of your belief in the accuracy of random mutation rates of Eve. Right?
You'd have to explain what the impact would be. Why is the randomness affected?
The creationists see a big problem with your belief that indirect dating is direct evidence.
I don't care what they think they see; they have to explain WHY they think if is a big problem. In great detail using real evidence and logic. Until you supply that you are making up crap.
You have the oldest human 200,000 years dated by rate of mutations in michondrail eve. Then by the same methods used for sandwiched dating evolutionists date Lucy (a chimp)to be millions of years old.
Lucy is clearly NOT a chimp. The humans dates do not ONLY come from mutations. You need to actually know something about what you are talking about. If you don't like the sandwhich dates you have to explain, in detail, why not.
The evolutionists picture just does not fit the evidence.
You don't know what the evidence is. You have to know that AND explain why you think it is not fitted to. You have to propose a picture which fits it better.
{Added link in 2nd paragraph, to the source topic and message. - Adminnemooseus 12/27/05}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2005 04:30 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2005 6:08 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by Nighttrain, posted 12-14-2005 6:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 300 (269337)
12-14-2005 5:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 3 of 300 (269347)
12-14-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
12-14-2005 5:39 PM


If something is sandwhiched between two undisturbed layers why would you think that it's date isn't between the dates of those layers?
undisturbed is the key here. i've heard of various strata being picked up and flipped over in a small local area before. so you get strata that go, from bottom to top: oldest, old, older, new. but then that leaves behind sings that it's been disturbed.
Even without knowing what Australian C-14 date you are refering to I don't see how that has anything at all to do with the sandwich question.
i'm not totally sure what c14 has to do with rocks anyways. c14 is for organic material. fossils are inorganic.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-14-2005 06:08 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2005 5:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-14-2005 6:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 4 of 300 (269348)
12-14-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
12-14-2005 5:39 PM


Aussie specimen
Hi, Ned, I hope Golfer is not going to quote the famous(?)Aussie geologist Andrew Snelling, who writes up dating correlations in geo publications and rubbishes dating methods on Creo sites like AIG.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2005 5:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 7:07 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 5 of 300 (269370)
12-14-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by arachnophilia
12-14-2005 6:08 PM


Overturned strata
Undisturbed is the key here. I've heard of various strata being picked up and flipped over in a small local area before. So you get strata that go, from bottom to top: Oldest, old, older, new. But then that leaves behind signs that it's been disturbed.
Must... have... capital... letters... at... sentence... beginnings... or... get... nauseous... when... reading... them. Also fixed other typo.
I think you are mixing in you beer drinking research here.
Yes, you can get entirely overturned strata, with some sort of discontinuity (probably a fault) topped by the youngest strata, topped by progressively older strata, topped again by some sort of discontinuity (maybe an errosional surface).
Restated - You can find areas, sometimes even large areas, where the progression from bottom to top is younger to older. Such as the overturned folding of the Alps.
May seem like I've been drinking, even though I haven't been,
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2005 6:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Nighttrain, posted 12-14-2005 7:35 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 12-15-2005 5:38 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 6 of 300 (269374)
12-14-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Nighttrain
12-14-2005 6:10 PM


Re: Aussie specimen
Nighttrain, Thanks bud, thats the famous creationists. He likely Snelling is in agreement with Ned's belief about Varves carbon being status quo because it supports his fossil carbon was status quo too. If the ratio isn't status quo in dating marine fossils due to carbonates of C-14 this should raise a flag.
Meaning in varves they date the organics not the leachate.Right? I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with Ned and Snellings beliefs on this one.
It might be there is something to varve dating to say the last 6,000 years a tighter correlation perhaps supportive to Snellings and Ned's beliefs.
It does raise another flag that sandwich dating is not in agreement with the scientific evidence.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-14-2005 08:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Nighttrain, posted 12-14-2005 6:10 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2005 8:35 PM johnfolton has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 7 of 300 (269385)
12-14-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Minnemooseus
12-14-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Overturned strata
I think you are mixing in your beer drinking research here.
Man, you know how to cut a feller down to size, Moose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-14-2005 6:54 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 300 (269442)
12-14-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by johnfolton
12-14-2005 7:07 PM


References
Golfer, we need the reference to the material.
He likely Snelling is in agreement with Ned's belief about Varves carbon being status quo because it supports his fossil carbon was status quo too. If the ratio isn't status quo in dating marine fossils due to carbonates of C-14 this should raise a flag
This is more gibberish. You have been asked to explain such stuff before. You have, as yet not responded to any such requests. At this point EVERYTHING you have posted is unsupported crap.
Meaning in varves they date the organics not the leachate.Right? I'm not sure if I'm in agreement with Ned and Snellings beliefs on this one.
?? I doubt very much that there is a single belief that Snellings and I have in common. What little I've seen of his isn't even honest much less right.
It might be there is something to varve dating to say the last 6,000 years a tighter correlation perhaps supportive to Snellings and Ned's beliefs.
We do not share beliefs. What are you talking about here?
It does raise another flag that sandwich dating is not in agreement with the scientific evidence.
Sandwich dating IS in agrrement with the scientific evidence. You are simply wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 7:07 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 9:53 PM NosyNed has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 300 (269491)
12-14-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
12-14-2005 8:35 PM


Re: References
Golfer, we need the reference to the material.
He likely Snelling is in agreement with Ned's belief about Varves carbon being status quo because it supports his fossil carbon was status quo too. If the ratio isn't status quo in dating marine fossils due to carbonates of C-14 this should raise a flag
Ned: This is more gibberish. You have been asked to explain such stuff before. You have, as yet not responded to any such requests. At this point EVERYTHING you have posted is unsupported crap.
---------------------------------------------
Heres a link to people that agree that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 is not kosher in marine environments. I thought you knew this stuff. Sorry I hope this brings you up to speed.
CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2005 8:35 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2005 10:34 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 12-14-2005 11:14 PM johnfolton has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 300 (269509)
12-14-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
12-14-2005 9:53 PM


Marine C12 to C14
That is not what I'm asking about.
We all know that. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
If you think otherwise you have to show why.
The reference requested was the Ozzie C-14 issue -- Snellings.
You have, meanwhile, answered none of the various questions put to you. Zero!
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2005 10:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 9:53 PM johnfolton has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 11 of 300 (269522)
12-14-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
12-14-2005 9:53 PM


Re: References
Ok. How does this support your claims?
Quote from the site you referenced.
The reservoir effect is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools. Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 9:53 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 11:59 PM Theodoric has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 12 of 300 (269533)
12-14-2005 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Theodoric
12-14-2005 11:14 PM


Re: References
Theodoric, Ned wants to correlate the C-14 dating methods to varves that have been correlated to annual varves. While it does appear to be a tight correlation for 6,000 years in the correlation thread. However were talking about correlating to a marine leachate environment in respect to varves. This should raise flags.
Its one thing to correlate to tree ring dating based on annual tree rings however it could be argued that tree rings average 2 annual rings per year(spring and fall). If they determined this to be the case they liekly would have to recalibrate the C-14 method. Its not all cut in granite, glaciers, limestone contamination of marine environments, and even possible contamination by leachates.
-----------------------------------------------
Heres a link to Snellings mineralized fossil.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp
If you dredge a lake of all its leachate and date the organics thousands of years later you could say the varve layers were contaminated with C-14 carbonates. You might even find an iron pourous rock that was actually contaminated with C12 to C14 before the leachate was removed.
Snellings mineralized fossils even if contaminated show C-14 existed sandwiched between million year old sediments. C-14 should not be sandwiched between million year old layers. This likely is the bigger issue, though Its not uncommon to date coal or oil thousands of years old by the C14 method. Here is another link in agreement that dating methods of evolutionists are bogus in respect to the fossils age. I realize they are deriving a date, but simply not in agreement with C-14 dating of coal and oil fields. They date only thousands of years old not millions of years. Dating fossils by indirect dating is only science moving backwards.
--------------------------------------------------
When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date many different things including oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by this method revealed them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating oil and coal using this method.
Loading...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 12-14-2005 11:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2005 12:11 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2005 2:48 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 17 by Nighttrain, posted 12-15-2005 3:22 AM johnfolton has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 300 (269538)
12-15-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by johnfolton
12-14-2005 11:59 PM


Stick to one thing Golfer
Theodoric, Ned wants to correlate the C-14 dating methods to varves that have been correlated to annual varves. While it does appear to be a tight correlation for 6,000 years in the correlation thread. However were talking about correlating to a marine leachate environment in respect to varves. This should raise flags.
If you think you have anything coherent to say about the correlations please take them to that thread. It is not apparent from the above that you have read more than a few posts in that thread.
Its one thing to correlate to tree ring dating based on annual tree rings however it could be argued that tree rings average 2 annual rings per year(spring and fall). If they determined this to be the case they liekly would have to recalibrate the C-14 method. Its not all cut in granite, glaciers, limestone contamination of marine environments, and even possible contamination by leachates.
It can not be argued that tree rings average 2 rings per year. It is very clear that almost universally they do NOT.
If you think you have good evidence for anything else that would be a good opening post for a new thread. If not that then you can add something to the correlations thread. But you'll have to read and understand it first.
If you dredge a lake of all its leachate and date the organics thousands of years later you could say the varve layers were contaminated with C-14 carbonates. You might even find an iron pourous rock that was actually contaminated with C12 to C14 before the leachate was removed.
Again: huh?
I'll look at your reference and get back to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by johnfolton, posted 12-14-2005 11:59 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 12:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 300 (269544)
12-15-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by NosyNed
12-15-2005 12:11 AM


Creationists exposing the falicies of indirect dating
Ned, Heres a better link. If coal is dating thousands of years old not millions of years old then indirect dating is science going in the wrong direction. You do realize Libby proved C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere? You do realize Katheline Hunt only thinks C-14 produced in the earth. If you don't agree that coal dating is accurate what proof (scientific evidence) pray tell supports your position?
How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods? - ChristianAnswers.Net
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-15-2005 12:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2005 12:11 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Nighttrain, posted 12-15-2005 2:47 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 12-15-2005 10:44 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 19 by Jazzns, posted 12-15-2005 10:55 AM johnfolton has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 15 of 300 (269568)
12-15-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
12-15-2005 12:41 AM


Re: Creationists exposing the falicies of indirect dating
Hi, G. You realise 14C cannot date into the millions of years, don`t you?
Do you also realise that while there might be an occasional extra ring for a given year in one climatic condition, tree rings are correlated with other species thousands of miles away where similar beneficial conditions are unlikely to exist at the same time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 12:41 AM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024