|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5298 days) Posts: 26 From: Ann Arbor, Michigan Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Soft Tissue Surviving 65 Million Years? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Creationist are not saying radiometric dating don't work, they are saying that the assumption that the nuclear decay is constant may not be true. (1) This is like saying: "I'm not saying that your clock is wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't run at a constant rate." This is a distinction without a difference. (2) Yes, (young earth) creationists are saying that radiometric dating doesn't work. To admit that it worked would be to admit that it gives correct dates, which would be the first step towards the reality they are so desperate to avoid. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I agree, but simply 'older then 50 000 years' as a result (assuming the max age is 50 000 years) would be sufficient to cast doubt on the interpretations creationist do of this data. Absolutely wrong! Creationist have already used radio-carbon dating on coal in order to claim that it's only 50,000 years old. We already know that creationist lie because we have already heard them use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I used the 50 000 years old age simply because that was the number bluescat48 used as a hypothetical maximum date. I think with the new mass accelerator technology, we can push carbon-14 dating up to 250 000 years old.
But since it wasn't really the issue here, I simply used the same 'maximum date' as bluescat48. It doesn't change the essence of what I was trying to say: creationist would predict that carbon14 would be found. Evolutionists would not. If only negligeable traces of carbon14 (inside the uncertainty) would be found, it would cast doubt on the creationist interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
BTW, I thought about this this week, and I think Percy you could help me on this.
Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ? That depends. If you're lucky, it's sandwiched between igneous rocks, e.g. basalt flows or volcanic ash. Otherwise, you use index fossils, i.e. fossils that, whenever you can date them by such methods, always turn out to lie in a certain age range. Or, or course, both. Coragyps mentioned that the Hell Creek formation had been dated "seven ways from Sunday": perhaps he can tell you more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
slevesque writes: I used the 50 000 years old age simply because that was the number bluescat48 used as a hypothetical maximum date. I think with the new mass accelerator technology, we can push carbon-14 dating up to 250 000 years old. This is the second time you've said this, and for the second time, not that I've ever heard of. Accelerator mass spectrometry allows tinier, not older, samples to be dated. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Accelerator mass spectrometry allows tinier, not older, samples to be dated.
Actually a couple of labs are working towards about 80,000 years on an experimental basis. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
sleveque,
Isn't sandstone dated with index fossils ? If not, what dating method is used on this type of strata ? The strata are dated by looking at the next oldest & youngest igneous rocks in the geologic column above & below the strata to be dated. Say we want to date "C", & it turns out that at the bottom of "B" & the top of "D" contained datable igneous rocks: Strata AStrata B Igneous rock dates to 100 mya Strata C Strata D Igneous rock dates to 110 mya Strata E Then "C" must be 100 to 110 mya. If around the world a particularly abundant fossil consistently dates in this age bracket & never anywhere else, then we can reasonably assume any strata containing that fossil is 100-110 mya. Mark Edited by mark24, : No reason given. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
doesn't AMS count carbon-14 atoms almost individually, hence getting much greater precision ? (and so older ?)
I'll have to find that book where I read this
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yeah well I understood this with Dr. Adequate's post.
But in this particular case, how was it dated ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
slevesque,
But in this particular case, how was it dated ?
No idea, you'll probebly have to read the original paper, but for the record, why is it important? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
slevesque writes: doesn't AMS count carbon-14 atoms almost individually, hence getting much greater precision ? (and so older ?) I'll have to find that book where I read this You can try to find that book if you like, but regardless of what it says it is unlikely that AMS could make possible radiocarbon dating to ages as great as 250,000 years because of two fundamental problems that work together to confound such a possibility:
In other words, 250,000 years seems out of the question. But that's not the issue. I'm only addressing this so that you can add it to the list of things you don't seem to know much about and thereby begin to understand that you should attach less certainty to your opinions. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Clarify 2nd point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
But in this particular case, how was it dated ? In the case of the Hell Creek, there's a review here (pdf). The 80 Ma hadrosaur is from the Judith River formation in Montana: it's interbedded with bentonite, which is volcanic in origin and so datable by potassium-argon and/or uranium methods. Google Scholar has 14,000 hits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
Dr writes: (1) This is like saying: "I'm not saying that your clock is wrong, I'm saying that it doesn't run at a constant rate." This is a distinction without a difference. (2) Yes, (young earth) creationists are saying that radiometric dating doesn't work. To admit that it worked would be to admit that it gives correct dates, which would be the first step towards the reality they are so desperate to avoid. The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The only measure of time is the earths rotation and it's orbit around the sun. That would be false. It is also a ridiculous statement. Google and find out what the Bureau of Standards uses to tell time and perhaps you'll learn something. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024