For whatever - your insult, and radioisotope dating

whatever, where is your support of your claim that "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old"?What about the other dating methods that indicate an old Earth and agree with the K-Ar dates, such as Rb-Sr isochrons, Nd-Sm isochrons, Ar-Ar isochrons, Re-Os isochrons, U-Pb concordia-discordia, Pb-Pb isochrons, U-Th-He dating, luminescence dating, fission track dating, electron spin resonance dating, thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated dating, infra-red stimulated luminescence, radioluminescence dating, cosmogenic exposure dating, cation ratio dating, and probably others that I don't know about? The fossil record has been proven, far beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, to be ancient. If you want to claim it's been proven to be young, for the second time, present evidence instead of unsupported assertions Thre is no reason to believe that the fossils are yonger than the rocks in which they are contained.Are you seriously proposing that fossils burrowed their way into the rocks in which they are found?Got a

whatever, where is your support of your claim that "the argon potassium dating half life scale is rigged so all rocks will date millions of years old"?What about the other dating methods that indicate an old Earth and agree with the K-Ar dates, such as Rb-Sr isochrons, Nd-Sm isochrons, Ar-Ar isochrons, Re-Os isochrons, U-Pb concordia-discordia, Pb-Pb isochrons, U-Th-He dating, luminescence dating, fission track dating, electron spin resonance dating, thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated dating, infra-red stimulated luminescence, radioluminescence dating, cosmogenic exposure dating, cation ratio dating, and probably others that I don't know about? It appears that you are unaware that C-14 dating has never been used to date a fossil or a rock. C-14 dating is used to date organic remains (fossils and rocks are not organic remains) that are younger than 50,000 years or so. The conclusion that the fossils and the rocks encasing them are old is based on K-Ar dating, Rb-Sr isochrons, Nd-Sm isochrons, Ar-Ar isochrons, Re-Os isochrons, U-Pb concordia-discordia, Pb-Pb isochrons, U-Th-He dating, luminescence dating, fission track dating, electron spin resonance dating, thermoluminescence dating, optically stimulated dating, infra-red stimulated luminescence, radioluminescence dating, cosmogenic exposure dating, cation ratio dating, and probably others that I don't know about ... but not C-14 dating, because C-14 dating is inappropriate and useless for dating rocks and fossils.

I'd be inclined to say that the phrase above about sums it up. It takes a special talent to manage to be so completely unaware and, then, in spite of warnings and help, stay that unaware.There appears to have been no progress. I believe there will be none before someone disappears in an insulted cloud of pink smoke (probably asserting victory on the way out).

---

Common sense isn't

http://www.ucomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/05/

mark24, I'm not a young earther, so I have no problem if some of the sediments came from pre-flood catastrophies, even the bible indicates the earth will be hit by a star, that it will be given the key of the bottomless pit kjv rev 9:1, and when the seventh vial is released into the air, that the earth will shake as it hasn't shaken since man was upon the earth kjv rev 16:18, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-05-2004]

You say that you're an old-earther. Are you a young-lifer or old-lifer?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Whatever, So why did you say.... ?And I repeat my challenge; PROVE to to the same standard you expect JonF to prove an old fossil record, that the fossil record is young.What's good for the goose....... Or is it that you hold yourself to a different standard?If you aren't a YEC, what's your beef with radiometric dating? Are you happy with 66 million year old dinosaurs? If not, I want your PROOF that dinosaur fossil found below the K-T boundary are ALL younger than 65 my. I tell you what, I'll accept your corroborating evidence that = 70,000,000 : 1 or more that the K-T boundary & all fossil found below it are = < 65 Myo.Either that, or you have a very different meaning of "young fossil record" &/or "proof" to the rest of us.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-05-2004]

But you want the fossils *inside* those sediments to be young?? How does that happen? And "hit by a star?" Maybe you mean "swallowed by?"This is better than TV, for sure!

I believe the earth is possibly 4.6 billion years old, however, believe the sun is only a star 13,000 years, and the fossils found frozen testify they are young, how does that make me a young earther, if I have no problem with the rocks being older than the fossils, etc...
P.S. Just because you can't date fossil imprints, or fossils, if there is no organic remains, however, they were able to date the pleistocene fossils found abundantly frozen in the Siberia, Alaska, etc... Atlantisquest.comPerhaps some of your K-T Tektites could of simply been formed during the biblical flood, even Walt Brown believes 35 percent of the sediments that erupted with the waters were the basalt, if it cooled suddenly, might explain some of your K-T Tektites, though likely the flood lifted up some of these sediments tranlocated them, supporting your asteroid or that they were formed by the erupting waters of the flood itself, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-05-2004]

quote:

---

I believe the earth is possibly 4.6 billion years old, however, believe the sun is only a star 13,000 years

---

And why did God make the sun appear as ancient as the Earth, from the isotopes which it contains to its stage in the main sequence, and a hundred other factors?

quote:

---

how does that make me a young earther, if I have no problem with the rocks being older than the fossils, etc...

---

You should. There are fossilized *footprints* buried under *many ancient basaltic flows*. Fossilized egg shells. Fossil bivalves, complete with their burrows. Fossilized plants. Soil horizons. Entire layers of deposited marine life. Etc. All underneath ancient basalt (often many layers of it). That would be quite the magic trick to get them down there.

quote:

---

they were able to date the pleistocene fossils found abundantly frozen in the Siberia, Alaska, etc...

---

They're not fossilized. Do you not know the difference between fossilization and preservation? Also, don't you know how recent the pleistocene is?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, The PALEONTOLOGICAL TESTIMONY puts this massive world wide pleistocene extinction of life to be only 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, given C-14 dating always errors with the fossil being older, not younger, proving in part, no evidence C-14 being formed within the earth, whatever, the paleontologists call these fossils of the biblical flood, the pleistocene extinction.The Pleistocene ExtinctionAtlantisquest.com
Paleontologists the world over know that something catastrophic happened to the large mammals roaming the world during the Pleistocene Epoch. Woolly mammoths, mastodons, toxodons, sabre-toothed tigers, woolly rhinos, giant ground sloths, and many other large Pleistocene animals are simply no longer with us. In fact, well over 200 species of animals (involving millions of individual animals) totally disappeared at the end of the Pleistocene some 10,000-12,000 years ago in what is known to Paleontologists as the Pleistocene Extinction

Contamination with carbon from more recent sources (i.e. carried in ground water) can make material appear younger to carbon dating. It seems that your "proof" that fossils are young is based on the false assumption that this cannot happen.Moreover there is no evidence that the Pleistocine extinction was caused by a flood - indeed it happened at different times in different parts of the world :
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec03/b65lec03.htm

Whatever, I will happily grant you that frozen animals are relatively young. But this has no bearing whatsoever on fossils found within rock matrix that underly the K-T boundary that has been dated to 65 myo with 70,000,000 : 1 odds of such corroboration occurring by chance. I have only factored in one type of rock, do you want me to find more? Corroborating evidence is multiplicative, that means 70E6:1 gets multiplied. Yeah, "etc." indeed.What do you mean, "even Walt Brown believes"? Tektites are not basalt, they are glassy spherules formed during an impact. They are found in the same layers as the Iridium spike & shocked quartz.What you fail to explain is why the K-T boundary that has such good corroborating evidence of its date only has Dinosaur fossils below it. This makes all of the Dinosaurs > 65 myo & not a few thousand, right?God lifted up the K-T boundary & slipped all the mesozoic fossils in below it? Are you seriously suggesting that the dust from the Iridium spike that also dates to 65 million years old was lifted up by the flood & layered globally a few millimeters thick amongst other rocks that also date 65 myo by chance, without exception?Don't you think the flood would mix up all those tektites, Iridium dust, & shocked quartz a bit rather than layering it so perfectly? Not a single Dinosaur above it, not one. Iridium dust, shocked quartz, & tektites are all very differently sized particles that could not be layered so perfectly by a global flood. In fact the only thing your flood has managed to achieve is to order the geologic column by it's sequential radiometric age & most definately not the hydrodynamic properties of the particles that make it up. How did it manage that, do you think?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004][This message has been edited by mark24, 01-06-2004]

It never ceases to amaze me that you all have such patience when dealing with people who obviously don't seem to want to listen, and endlessly parrot off the most ludicrous claims imaginable...Whatever - the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, but the Sun is only 13,000 years? Please explain this a little further. Did the Sun just appear in the sky, poofed into being by a god with a truly bizarre sense of humour? Why do you believe this? Perhaps you have some insight into the nature of existance that us mere mortals have not divined yet? If so, please share it with us - with evidence, if you will, as we have so kindly provided so much for you.

quote:

---

Just because you can't date fossil imprints, or fossils, if there is no organic remains, however, they were able to date the pleistocene fossils found abundantly frozen in the Siberia, Alaska, etc...

---

Perhaps you don't understand. Fossils ARE dated - but by the rock they appear in. They are assumed to be the same age, because it is a physical impossibility that they appeared in the rock after it formed. Suggesting that it could happen implies that magic was involved somewhere - or maybe you could explain the process by which you think it could have happened? Or do we have to call on god again to poof them into it?

quote:

---

Perhaps some of your K-T Tektites could of simply been formed during the biblical flood, even Walt Brown believes 35 percent of the sediments that erupted with the waters were the basalt, if it cooled suddenly, might explain some of your K-T Tektites, though likely the flood lifted up some of these sediments tranlocated them, supporting your asteroid or that they were formed by the erupting waters of the flood itself, etc...

---

Whatever - I think I might be able to set you straight here. I am a geologist, and I am somewhat familiar with the geology of Ireland at least. I have also read a good amount on this subject. I would like to offer my professional opinion, if you can stand to read it...THERE IS NO GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLICAL FLOOD.There isn't even a workable hypothesis of how it happened that doesn't involve magic or very shoddy science.You seem to have problem with radiometric dating methods, which I can accept. I can argue the case for ancient fossils without mentioning those methods if you like.By the way, I find your comments about palaeontologists covering up evidence or duping people to be very insulting. Let's avoid the spurious attacks in future, ok?The Rock Hound

whatever wrote:"JonF, If Snellings wood fossil was actually
230 million years old it would not have any
C-14, as C-14 has only been proven to be
formed in the atmosphere (proven),"It is true that the primary source of C14 is formed in the atmosphere. However, both Snelling and Mr. whatever ignore the fact that the radioactive carbon from the atmosphere is easily dissolved in groundwater as part of organic compounds, which are easily absorbed by fossil wood. Also, bacteria/fungi can degrade the coalified portion of what remains of organic portion of the fossilized wood and result in the deposition of modern carbon within the fossilized wood. Because the petrified wood was found in porous sandstone through which groundwater easily flows and is heavily altered by fossilziation, contamination of the sample by organic carbon in groundwater and bacteria/fungi very likely occurred.Interested lurkers can read, Claim CD011.5:" at:
CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic woodand "Meert, Joe, 2003. Andrew Snelling and the Iron Concretion?" at:
Frequently Asked In Joe Meert's article, it is revealed that Mr. Snelling wasn't dating a sample of well-preserved wood, which is an essential requirement for a valid date. Instead, Dr. Snelling dated a piece of heavily fossilized wood, which was largely replaced by iron oxides and very likely contained very little, if any, of its original carbon. What, if anything, that remained of the original wood, very likely was coalified, and altered to the point of being useless for dating. Anybody who understands C14 dating would know that it is impossible to expect, within any reason, that such heavily fossilized wood will provide C14 dates. That Dr. snelling and Mr. whatever both claim that this piece of largely permineralized wood provided a valid date only proved that they are both scientifically illiterate in their understanding of C14 dating.Mr whatever wrote:"though, I'm sure you all believe its
being formed within the earth(not proven),
because you have no other way to explain
Snellings dated wood fossil, etc..."The fact of the matter is that the material dated by Dr. Snelling was a piece of fossilized wood largely permineralized by iron oxides and bathed in groundwater to the point that it would have useless for C14 dating. Thus, nobody needed to fabricate an additional excuses to understand the futility of dating this piece of Triassic wood. There exists no scientific basis to anyone to expect that a heavily altered, fossilized wood encased in porous sandstone would produce a valid date. The possible formation of C14 in place is nothing more than another, although minor, factor that raises additional questions about the validity of this date and the dates obtain from coal. Interested lurkers can read about the scientific basis of this additional factor in "Carbon-14 Formation in Coal Deposits" at:Carbon-14 in Coal DepositsMr whatever wrote:"P.S. Get over it, its a moot point, the
fossils have been proven to be young,
and the rocks old, etc...The paleontologist
are using you, they rely on your faith, to
support their delusions, etc..."Contrary to what Mr. whatever wants to believe, there are very solid reasons to regard the Earth as being old and Dr. Snelling's efforts to prove otherwise as nothing more than intellectually bankrupt religious fiction. For the details, the interested lurkers can look throughthe articles listed in "The Age of the Earth" at;The Talk.Origins Archive: The Age of the Earth FAQsIf there are any delusions, it is Mr. whatever, who is deluded in thinking that the badly flawed research produced by Dr. Snelling proves anything. Also, Mr. whatever is quite deluded to think that geologists rely on faith to come to their conclusions. In fact, the main reason that Mr. whatever so forcefully disagrees with geologists is because they don't rely on faith, specifically Mr. whatever's faith, to interpret Earth history.Yours,Bill Birkeland[This message has been edited by Bill Birkeland, 01-06-2004]