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.
™ Version 4.2