Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Happy Birthday: ameliajack
Post Volume: Total: 917,267 Year: 4,524/9,624 Month: 299/1,096 Week: 4/119 Day: 4/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9524
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1486 of 1498 (881603)
08-26-2020 3:03 AM


Apparently, dating cave paintings is quite difficult; carbon dating requires the destruction of at least some of the painting and can give quite a range. Also many paintings use pigments that don't contain carbon.
Sometimes bones, fires and other signs of human habitation are found in the caves that can also be dated but you then have to assume that those inhabitants also made the paintings.
They also use uranium dating as sometimes calcite forms over or under the painting. (The beginnings of stalagmites). QI
Rock (Art) of Ages: Indonesian Cave Paintings Are 40,000 Years Old | Science| Smithsonian Magazine
Defining the age of a rock or cave painting | Resource | RSC Education

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1487 of 1498 (894959)
06-03-2022 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 567 by Rrhain
07-23-2017 4:24 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Rrhain writes:
Now, the Catholic position is also that evolution explains the origin of the body but not the mind, but that's quibbling. The fact remains that the official position of one of the largest religious sects on the planet is that evolution is the only answer we have.
No, it's not a fact. The Catholic Church doesn't have an "official position" on evolution and it doesn't teach that "evolution is the only answer we have."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Rrhain, posted 07-23-2017 4:24 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1488 by Percy, posted 06-04-2022 11:10 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1488 of 1498 (894974)
06-04-2022 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1487 by Dredge
06-03-2022 3:19 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
You're replying to a message that is nearly five years old, and its author, Rrhain, last visited this site over three years ago.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1487 by Dredge, posted 06-03-2022 3:19 PM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1489 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2022 5:05 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 1489 of 1498 (894984)
06-04-2022 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1488 by Percy
06-04-2022 11:10 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
And his reply is way wrong since the catholic church has had changing official doctrines on evolution forever. The latest, I guess, is not to his liking.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1488 by Percy, posted 06-04-2022 11:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1490 of 1498 (912013)
08-09-2023 7:53 AM


My understanding is that the age of fossils is determined by the age of the sedimentary rock they are formed and found in. 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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 1491 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2023 8:29 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1492 by dwise1, posted 08-09-2023 10:13 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1493 by Percy, posted 08-09-2023 2:27 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9257
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1491 of 1498 (912014)
08-09-2023 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1490 by Dredge
08-09-2023 7:53 AM


Read a book

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1490 by Dredge, posted 08-09-2023 7:53 AM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(5)
Message 1492 of 1498 (912015)
08-09-2023 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1490 by Dredge
08-09-2023 7:53 AM


Re: Having to Explain the Dating of Sedimentary Rock to Dredge ... AGAIN
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:
  • Sedimentary layers can be dated relatively based on the Law of Superposition:
    quote:
    In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will lie at the bottom of the sequence, while newer material stacks upon the surface to form new deposits over time. This is paramount to stratigraphic dating, which requires a set of assumptions, including that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed.
  • Radiometric dating determines how long ago the rock last solidified after having been completely molten.:
    • Igneous rock as is found in volcanic ash, lava flows, and igneous intrusions had been melted and so can be dated with radiometric dating methods.
    • Sedimentary rock is composed of ground-up rocks so radiometric dating methods will not work on them, but rather would yield older dates from the component older rocks.
    That means that you can get absolute ages for igneous rocks but not for sedimentary rocks.
  • We can bracket in a range of absolute values for sedimentary layers (ie, determine its age to be with a range between a younger and an older age). This is typically done through igneous layers and igneous intrusions:
    • If the sedimentary layer is above an igneous layer that had formed on the surface (important point; see below), then the sedimentary layer is younger than the underlying igneous layer. The age of the igneous layer would give us an upper bound on the sedimentary layer's age.
    • If the sedimentary layer is below an igneous layer that had formed on the surface (important point; see below), then the underlying sedimentary layer is older than the overlying igneous layer. The age of the igneous layer would give us an lower bound on the sedimentary layer's age.
    • If the sedimentary layer is between two igneous layers that had formed on the surface (important point; see below), then those two igneous layers bracket in the age of that sedimentary layer: it is younger than the older igneous layer and older than the younger igneous layer.
      Note that that bracketing between igneous layers can be constructed from findings at two different sites as long as the sedimentary layer can be determined to be the same layer. This is determined by comparing the characteristics of the layer at the two sites (eg, composition, index fossils) as well as its relative position between other layers.
    • If a vertical igneous intrusion is found through another layer, then that means that that layer had to already exist before the intrusion. Hence, that intrusion would be younger than the layer and, of course, the layer would be older than the intrusion. In addition, an intrusion could extend through multiple layers, thus providing a lower bound on those layers' ages (ie, they'd all be older than the intrusion).
    • It is possible for an intrusion to be horizontal, such that it forces itself between two pre-existing older layers. That would make the layers above and below a horizontal intrusion older than that intrusion.
      This is the important point I alerted you to above:
      This raises the question of how to tell whether an igneous layer had formed on the surface and then had more layers deposited on it, or had formed as a horizontal intrusion. Understand that the intense heat of that molten lava would have affected the pre-existing rock that came in contact with it. For example, in the Badlands of North Dakota, I found igneous intrusions into sandstone. Right along the contact between the sandstone and the intrusion the heat had changed the sandstone into a layer of sandy crust about a quarter-inch thick. It was very obvious and easy to see.
      In the case of the lower layer, both a surface lava flow and a horizontal intrusion would have the same effect due to intense heat along that contact. In the case of the upper layer, only a horizontal intrusion would have changed the upper layer along the contact due to intense heat. A surface lava flow would have solidified and cooled down before the overlying layer would have started to form, so the overlying layer would not be affected by the heat that is no longer present.
  • The bracketing of sedimentary layers between igneous layers could involve multiple sedimentary layers. In that case, relative dating between those layers as well as indicators of how rapidly they formed (eg, layers with large particles indicate rapid depositation and lack of large particles slow depositation) can be used to assign each layer its own time period within that range of ages.
  • Also, igneous bracketing at different sites can affect different sedimentary layers within that group of layers as well as provide comparison and verification of the igneous dates obtained.
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:
  • The age of a layer is how long ago it had formed:
    • For an igneous layer, that would be when the molten rock (eg, lava) had solidified.
    • For a sedimentary layer, that would be when the material, usually a collection of rock particles, was deposited.
    • For metamorphic rock, I'm not sure since I haven't worked through this case. It would have an age for when it formed originally as a layer at which time it would have been either igneous or sedimentary. But then it was subjected to forces (eg, heat, pressure) which changed it, thus metamorphizing it into a different kind of rock. I do not know whether there are dating methods for determining when that metamorphic event happened.
      Therefore, we won't discuss dating a metamorphic layer. Nor should we here since the question is about sedimentary layers.
  • The material making up the sedimentary layer must be older than that layer. Here is why:
    • The material that makes up a sedimentary layer has to already exist. That means that all that material, every single particle of it, has to be older than the layer they form. Using the cake analogy, you can't bake a cake with flour that won't be milled for another month yet; the flour has to have been milled before going into the cake.
    • The layers that were the source of that material had to have formed before their material was available for forming the new sedimentary layer. Therefore, those layers had to have been older than the new sedimentary layer.
    • Parts of those older layers had to have broken up and ground up by forces such as erosion. That takes time, usually a lot of time.
      A typical scenario would be:
      1. The older layers form. Usually they will be buried under later layers, but occasionally some of them remain as the surface (in which case, skip Step 2).
        BTW, in order to lithify (ie, become rock -- Greek: λιθος = rock) the layer must be buried. If it is not buried, then it just remains dirt (or soil) which will get transported away with the rain or wind (unless trapped by vegetation's root systems) in the quickest form of erosion I can think of.
        You know, actually a layer that doesn't get buried and lithifies but rather remains the surface ... that doesn't qualify as a sedimentary layer. It's just unincorporated particles waiting around to be transported or buried to form a layer. We don't have to worry about it (though I had written a lot of the following before this realization and don't have time to edit it).
      2. Over time, those upper layers erode away, exposing those older layers. Or else (and much more commonly I would think) erosion creates a cliff (eg, the sides of a hill or of a river valley) which exposes part of those layers on the cliff face.
      3. Whether through being exposed by earlier erosion or having remained the surface, erosion breaks off pieces of those older layers and then breaks them down into smaller and smaller particles which then get transported away by flowing water or winds (eg, the beaches of Southern California where granite mountains get broken apart and ground up into smaller particles that are transported by streams and rivers out to the ocean where they form the quartz sand on our beaches; the coral reefs around Oahu getting eroded down by the ocean waves to form the coral sand of Waikiki).
        BTW, when geologists examine sandstone, they are able to tell whether that sand had been deposited by wind or by water.
      4. Well, finally the particles get transported to where they form the new sedimentary layer.
    • Each of those steps take time, a lot of time. So taking the example of just a single old layer: you have the old layer forming which takes time, then you have it being buried (or not, but it won't lithify unless it is buried) which takes time. Then you have to expose it again through erosion, which takes more time. Then erosion on those exposed parts of the layer needs to break it up into particles, which takes more time. Then those particles need to get broken down into smaller particles, hence even more time. And finally those particles need to be transported to where they can form a new layer -- you guessed it: more time.
    • What we end up with is the obvious fact that the particles that comprise a new sedimentary layer must be older than that layer. Most commonly much older by an order of millions of years older.
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.
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1490 by Dredge, posted 08-09-2023 7:53 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1495 by Dredge, posted 09-28-2023 7:36 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1493 of 1498 (912017)
08-09-2023 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1490 by Dredge
08-09-2023 7:53 AM


Creationism: ask => answered => forget => repeat
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1490 by Dredge, posted 08-09-2023 7:53 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1494 by dwise1, posted 08-23-2023 12:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(2)
Message 1494 of 1498 (912267)
08-23-2023 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1493 by Percy
08-09-2023 2:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1493 by Percy, posted 08-09-2023 2:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1495 of 1498 (912745)
09-28-2023 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1492 by dwise1
08-09-2023 10:13 AM


Re: Having to Explain the Dating of Sedimentary Rock to Dredge ... AGAIN
Thank you for the information u supplied on dating sedimentary rock.
unwise1 writes:
So sad that you are incapable of learning on your own.
Yes it is ... but what do u expect from an idiot with an IQ of only 9?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1492 by dwise1, posted 08-09-2023 10:13 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1496 by Percy, posted 09-28-2023 10:49 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1496 of 1498 (912746)
09-28-2023 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1495 by Dredge
09-28-2023 7:36 AM


Re: Having to Explain the Dating of Sedimentary Rock to Dredge ... AGAIN
Dredge writes:
Yes it is ... but what do u expect from an idiot with an IQ of only 9?
Obviously untrue. You're using deflection to avoid answering the question. 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?
Who knows whether it will be a week, a month or a year, but eventually you will again ask the question that dwise1 answered in Message 1492. You thanked him for it while not making any comment or asking any questions whatsoever on the information itself.
It's not that you're incapable of learning. It's that you have a way of seeing the world that requires a studied ignorance in order to survive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1495 by Dredge, posted 09-28-2023 7:36 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1497 by dwise1, posted 09-30-2023 7:57 PM Percy has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 1497 of 1498 (912787)
09-30-2023 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1496 by Percy
09-28-2023 10:49 AM


Re: Having to Explain the Dating of Sedimentary Rock to Dredge ... AGAIN
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1496 by Percy, posted 09-28-2023 10:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1498 by Percy, posted 10-01-2023 3:51 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22555
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 1498 of 1498 (912804)
10-01-2023 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1497 by dwise1
09-30-2023 7:57 PM


Re: Having to Explain the Dating of Sedimentary Rock to Dredge ... AGAIN
dwise1 writes:
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.
This implies a self-honesty they do not possess. What they actually believed was that scientists were already so miseducated that they were a lost cause and that it was far better to focus on laypeople so they could be properly educated.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1497 by dwise1, posted 09-30-2023 7:57 PM dwise1 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