Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Golfer, you have not provided any evidence at all for any of your assertions (e.g., talc, dolomite, kerogen, liquifaction, humic acids, anaerobic digestion, etc.) and until you do, this discussion will never get anywhere.Reading this thread is already like trying to follow a flitting moth into the dark.

Except that at Lake Suigetsu, terrestrial macrofossils (e.g., leaves, twigs, and bug parts) WERE directly dated.They were not converted to kerogen as you imply because the fossils were easily identified and picked out by the scientists.

Why? Why MUST we get old fossils? Because we want to cause YECs problems? Because we're trying to destroy religion, Christianity?For what purpose would scientists intentionally manipulate the data?

What makes you think we care that much about religion that we would spend our entire lives trying to discredit it? That's simply delusional.Sorry Golfer, you think much too highly of yourself and your theism. Religion is just not that important to me, especially as a non-theist. I can't think of anything more boring or Hellish than spending my entire professional life pondering religious issues.You and others of your ilk are the only ones with an agenda.

First of all, humus is not a mineral.Second, humification results in the destruction of the primary organic material, therefore, recognition of something like bug wings in the Lake Suigetsu sediments would be difficult if not impossible.Third, how do you know all those tests weren't done? Why don't you try emailing the primary author of the paper and ask him what has been done to the sediments?edited to add 'tentativeness' This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-28-2005 04:02 PM

Of course creation scientists have a religious agenda, randman, don't be ridiculous by asserting otherwise. All we have to do is point to the various statements of faith each creation scientist must adhere to.Show me one statement of faith that mainstream scientists must adhere to.Sorry. That was off topic.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-28-2005 04:33 PM

Mark answered your question quite nicely.As far as I've read, the Lake Suigetsu macrofossils (used for dating) are in near original condition, but of course it would be nice to actually see this in print someplace or hear it directly from the scientists directly involved in these studies.

Golfer, just because it's not in the paper doesn't mean it wasn't completed as part of the overall study. Technical papers actually represent minute portions of much larger studies.There is nothing wrong with questioning the scope of a study and the quality of the data. That is what you are supposed to do, and in fact, after reading the paper, I was left with several questions. However, were I considering using data from that paper, I would email one of the authors and ask for clarification of my questions.So in my opinion, it's premature to criticize the authors before you know the actual scope of the study. It's bad form. I have no idea what this means. Please explain.