Now I know that Alfred Wegener`s theory is wrong!

Aspevik, you are wrong. You SHOULD find some evidence of the impact if it occurred. You have dead Ediacara life forms apparently from the same time period. Obviously that ocean sediment wasn't destroyed.I am telling you that such a massive impact would cause a massive amount of ejecta to fly up into the atmosphere, which will in turn fall back to the earth. This ejecta will not simply fall back into the ocean basin(s), but will litter not only the surrounding ocean basin, but the nearby land masses -- unless you say that there were no nearby land masses... However, the iridium and other chemical signatures common to meteorite impacts can make it even further, possibly even around the entire planet.It's entirely possible to miss the evidence, particularly if people are not specifically looking for it, but you cannot dismiss it out of hand. If your impact happened, it left evidence someplace. Since you are tying it to an extinction event, it should be easier to find since you know which rocks to look in (i.e., rocks containing Ediacaran life and located just below Cambrian rocks).I can't remember if the end of the Precambrian is also thought to be associated with an extinction event by mainstream geologists, but if it is, and say some evidence of a bolide impact is found, you still have to tie it to your impact.

... Or the mass can fly throu the atmosphere and create the moon to an example?You maybe have right, but I am still working with my thereory and I have to find out where things went wrong. I must also take a look under the carpet, where geologists have pushed into anything that does not fit into their own theory. There are more under there than outside the carpet. ;-)

The idea that carbon deposits (I'm guessing these are the Proterozoic graphite deposits) can be blasted across the planet and end up in pure carbon basins is pretty fantastic.

This is a commonly referenced theory as to the origin of the moon. What went wrong? Feel free. Maybe a lot of those things are wherever you hide the facts we have given you.

Thats good! :-) I belive the dating of rocks can give us wrong information. The scienteist told us that the dating is exactly, but I know it isn`t.Age estimates which are obviously wrong or contradictory are sometimes produced.For example, new rock in the form of hardened lava flows produced estimated ages as great as 3 billion to 10.5 billion years, when they were actually less than 200 years old.A popular and supposedly foolproof method was used on two lava flows in the Grand Canyon that should be ideal for radioactive age estimation. The results were similarly bad. Young basalt rock at the Canyon's top produced an age estimate 270 million years older than ancient basalt rock at the Canyon's bottom. The problem seems to arise from basic wrong assumptions in the method (rubidium-strontium isochron).There is a lot of thing who tells us that the different methods for dating of rocks vill give us wrong results. Here I have picked a totally random article that describes this quite well: More Bad News for Radiometric DatingWe can also see that geologist are 100 % sure about the paelomagetism, but when we take a closer look we can see that the map does not match the terrain in any way as we see here where I have linked to before: Ancient Earth's Magnetic Field Was Structured Like Today's Two-pole ModelThat it is mutch better to see what the fossils tell us, and if you see at the locations at my maps, they would be lined into a nearly perfect circle if we put these same locations on a globe.There have to be an explonation for that, because we can`t put these locations under a carpet and pretend it does not exist since they don`t fits into todays model. I belive all stuff who doesn`t fits into this model would be rejected actually even if it is right.Do you know why? Because there is some people who think they have learn everything at the University that they need to know."They believe so strongly in the existing theory that observations gets fitted into the old model instead of the other way around as professor in geology, Karsten Storetvedt told us once.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.Edited by Aspevik, : No reason given.

one point rhat can be seen if one looks for it is that rocks as young a s several hundred years cannot be dated using long lived isotopes per the following: Radiometric Datingquote from the url: Thus rocks at the top of the Grand Canyon cannot be dated by long half lived isotopes.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

There have been a few studies in which supposedly young materials were dated by the K-Ar method as millions of years old. It turns out that these materials were actually a mix of young material and much older material, so the conclusions are obviously invalid.The Grand Canyon study was not done on rocks from the top of the canyon and from the bottom. It was on samples from four separate lava flows on top of the canyon, and on one phenocryst from one of the flows. The theory of isochrons predicts that such a study will not produce the age of any of the lava flows… and it didn't. So the theory is supported rather than undermined by this result. But, in fact, the determined age is almost certainly correct!! The isochron method measures the age at which the samples were isotopically homogeneneous, which for the samples from separate flows was not when they erupted (at differnt times) but was when they were all together in the mantle under the GC. 1.34 billion years ago, as determined by Austin's "study".In at least some of these cases the investigator knew (and in all of them he should have known) that the claimed errors were not errors at all, but were instead the product of deliberate and fraudulent sample selection and misrepresentation.Finally, all tests are subject to an error rate. None of the problems you cited are valid. Even if they were, a few bad results, even a few hundred bad results, are a minuscule fraction of the many results consilient with each other and with non-radiometric methods. A few failures means nothing.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This argument doesn't impress me much. Any chunk of rock can be put into the equipment, analyzed, and a result will be produced. Of course, if the material is indeed orders of magnitude younger than the half-life of the isotope(s) involved, the results will be wildly inaccurate. But there's no inherent error involved in submitting a young sample to test the method, if you're willing to pay for the analysis. The error lies in claiming that the result is relevant to the validity of all dating methods.Of course, in all of the creationist "studies" of this type that I'm aware of, the "young" material was in fact a mixture of old and young material. The results clearly show that when you date a mixture of old and young material, the result is not the age of the young material. Duh.

I don't think that is true. Perhaps for a few rare individuals and those probably do not have a science degree. Once you start studying, you realize quickly how much more there is to learn and that there is no way you will every be able to learn it all -- despite the desire. There is nothing more humbling, in my opinion, than getting a science degree. We may or may not believe strongly in any one theory, but as long as it works and is modifiable, we keep using it. If it starts failing our needs and observations, or if someone presents something that works better, then we'll look to change things.

'Can' or 'does'? Why are you hedging? And no, no one says that radiometric dating is exact, that is why they quote ages with error limits.Basically, you are wrong on both these points. Please document. As far as we can tell, you could be making up any story here. Again, please document. I don't know which study this is. Many of these studies were flawed as Jon has suggested. Ah, yes, John Plaisted. I have debated him persoanally. When he found out that I actually know something about the subject he withdrew from the discussion. Please try again. Where do you come up with this 100% business? You don't really know science, do you? As far as I know only a dipole model has ever been used extensively. However, if you want to get picky, there could be as many poles as you want due to the presence of magnetic materials in the earth's crust. That is why paleomag is a statistical study. Sure, if you move the continents around you can make any patter you want with limited data. And please tell us why they should occur in a circular pattern. Sure there is a reason for it. You put them there! Helge, if this is your attitude, we really have nothing left to discuss. I suggest you go to some YEC forum where everyone agrees with everthing anyone says, so long as it 'disproves' evolution.As it is you are wasting our time and my patience has ended. My only suggestion is that you start to look at some mainstream sources. The YEC sources do you no good.

That's what I've been asking. No answer yet.What do you think, A, can you offer an explanation as to why those Ediacaran fossil locations should be aligned along a circular path?And how do you explain the outliers?

You seem to be getting your information on radiometric dating from creationist sources.Don't you realize yet that they are lying to you when it comes to dating?They have to lie! They believe, for religious reasons, that the earth is young, so they do anything they can, anything they have to, to make the data and their conclusions match that belief.Scientists, on the other hand, follow the data where it leads.Tell me you haven't fallen for the creationist lies on dating!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I would come back to these question, when I am home again. I have something to do first. :-) But I have to thank you for the answers in the meantime. :-)

You may be familiar with these, but FWIW.Young lava flows producing old ages: Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano
discussed at:
Young-Earth Creationist 'Dating' of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient MineralsRadioactive ‘dating’ failure: Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years
The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon "Ages" for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon "Dating"
discussed briefly at:
DR. SNELLING'S "RADIOACTIVE 'DATING' FAILURE"
From the second Snelling article:

quote:

---

All samples were sent first for sectioning one thin section from each sample for petrographic analysis. A set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then despatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, minor and trace element analyses. A second representative set (50—100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating first a split from one sample from each flow, then a split from the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, the split from the third sample from the June 30, 1954 flow. ...

​

Because the sample pieces were submitted as whole rocks, the K-Ar laboratory undertook the crushing and pulverizing preparatory work. The concentrations of K2O (weight %) were then measured by the flame photometry method (Dalrymple & Lanphere, 1969), the reported values being the averages of two readings for each sample. The 40K concentrations (ppm) were calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the measured concentrations of K2O. The concentrations in ppm of 40Ar*, the supposed radiogenic 40Ar, were derived using the conventional formula from isotope dilution measurements on a mass spectrometer by correcting for the presence of atmospheric argon whose isotopic composition is known (Dalrymple & Lanphere). The reported concentrations of 40Ar* are the averages of two values for each sample. The ratios 40Ar*/Total Ar and 40Ar/36Ar are also derived from measurements on the mass spectrometer and are also the averages of two values for each sample. ...

​

Steiner (1958) stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey (1949) reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material. However, many of these aggregates are more accurately described as glomerocrysts and mafic (gabbro, websterite) nodules (Graham et al., 1995). They are 3—5 mm across, generally have hypidiomorphic-granular textures, and consist of plagioclase, orthopyroxene, and clinopyroxene in varying proportions, and very occasionally olivine. The true xenoliths are often rounded and invariably consist of fine quartzose material. Steiner also described much larger xenoliths of quartzo-feldspathic composition and relic gneissic structure.

---

{emphasis added}AKA "smoking gun".GC lava isochron:
Excessively Old "Ages" For Grand Canyon Lava Flows
discussed at:
A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project.

You seem to be getting your information on radiometric dating from creationist sources. There was a reason that I use this here, and that was to illustrat a point to what Edge asked me about over her: -"What went wrong?"I am not a cristian, but there is one thing I know when we work with a theory questions. There is a right way of doing things and a totally wrong way of doing things when we work with theories.The right way is first of all to
collect absolutely all possible and impossible theories. Nothing have to be ignored. if we do that, we would get a wrong answer. Thats the wrong way to do things like that when we work with theories.When we have collected all information we can get, then we start with taking two teories or any information and compare togheter against each other.The weakest and worst documented argument in relation to concrete facts, we put away before we look at two new issues. This form of argumentation is important to take into account, although this may look stupid at first time.As a result of this way to work on, there is the biggest chanse to find the right solution. At one we take som information away from all the information we have collected, then it is not sciense anymore.I don`t belive the world is so young as the creationist told us, but they can have some point when they show us their arguments like they do when they tells us that the radioactive age estimations methods can give us wrong answers.And here is my point. All resistance has been ignored in all the years of science. They do not like creationists and cares little about the fact even this is correct or not. This is a serious error when working with theory questions, and it is one of the reasons I think this is the best way to get the wrong answer to the question.Then we are back where I said that the evidence is adapted theory and not vice versa. Even if you do not like creationists, it is enormously important to look their counter-arguments to get an objective standing to this, even if this does not fit the theory. They also can actually provide facts, too. It doesn`matter if they are creationist or what ever they are, all information against the thereori is importen to look at on a objektive way. The story tells us that the University learn us to be objectve, but the scientist isn`t that at all like here.It is one of the things I think are the reasons why things have gone wrong, because you have excluded data because of prejudice and it is serious when working with theory questions. We have to look at all information, not only the things who fits into the theory.I'm actually a little embarrassed when I look at the work methods used today. That isn`t this way we have to work when we working with teory questions.