Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 12:49 PM
409 online now:
14174dm, Coyote, Faith, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (8 members, 401 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,826 Year: 10,432/21,208 Month: 3,519/2,674 Week: 62/873 Day: 62/76 Hour: 5/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 77 (610200)
03-27-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
03-27-2011 8:00 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
jar writes:

A catastrophe can disturb formations, and guess what, it also leaves evidence of the disturbance.

It can for example, overturn a formation, or tilt a formation, but those things are also taken into consideration.

BUT in the end, younger things are above older things.

Even when a catastrophe creates such a formation, it is the younger material on top of older material.

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise. To delve into that would be to delve in another flood debate and I don't want to go there in any depth in this thread, nor do I think admins would look favorably on that.

I want to get back to the questions in my mind about radiometric dating methods which scientists use to date fossils. I'm not satisfied that anyone has adequately answered those questions.

For example I asked why the dating methodology doesn't calculate the date of the sediment particles formed by the leaf into a fossil formation just like it would calculate an old date for the rock pieces in the ant hill on the earth's surface.

One answer was that the glue including mineral and whatever factored in, but that doesn't make sense to me, in that the aged glue itself would not necessarily record when the organism was deposited. It would seem that the radiometric dating of old rocks would calculate the aggregate age of the elements in the sediment rock, since no organic organism matter would be present in the fossil rock.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 8:00 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 9:20 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2011 9:32 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2011 9:35 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 8:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28698
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 32 of 77 (610201)
03-27-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

jar writes:

A catastrophe can disturb formations, and guess what, it also leaves evidence of the disturbance.

It can for example, overturn a formation, or tilt a formation, but those things are also taken into consideration.

BUT in the end, younger things are above older things.

Even when a catastrophe creates such a formation, it is the younger material on top of older material.

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise. To delve into that would be to delve in another flood debate and I don't want to go there in any depth in this thread, nor do I think admins would look favorably on that.

I want to get back to the questions in my mind about radiometric dating methods which scientists use to date fossils. I'm not satisfied that anyone has adequately answered those questions.

For example I asked why the dating methodology doesn't calculate the date of the sediment particles formed by the leaf into a fossil formation just like it would calculate an old date for the rock pieces in the ant hill on the earth's surface.

One answer was that the glue including mineral and whatever factored in, but that doesn't make sense to me, in that the aged glue itself would not necessarily record when the organism was deposited. It would seem that the radiometric dating of old rocks would calculate the aggregate age of the elements in the sediment rock, since no organic organism matter would be present in the fossil rock.

It cannot become a "Flood Thread" since there was no Biblical Flood. That is fact and anyone claiming that the Biblical Flood happened is either wrong, ignorant or lying.

To make sense of geological dating you need to understand that layers are created with the oldest material on the bottom and the youngest material on the top.

Even during a catastrophe that is true.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 33 of 77 (610202)
03-27-2011 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise.

Ignoring data and making stuff up should not be counted as as interpretation.

And the premise that everyone will be to stupid to realize that that is what you are doing isn't working for you either.


When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
Roger Waters

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 34 of 77 (610203)
03-27-2011 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
One answer was that the glue including mineral and whatever factored in, but that doesn't make sense to me, in that the aged glue itself would not necessarily record when the organism was deposited.

True, in the strictest sense. But if that leaf hasn't had its original tissues replaced by minerals in, say, 50,000 years or so, there won't be a fossil left for us to see (unless it is perhaps a cast) after a few million years. A 50,000-year error in a date of 50,000,000 years is the same size of error as being an hour off in something that you remember from 41 days ago - early February. Not a deal-killer in the question, "when did this leaf fall." Patticularly when the leaf is of a sort that has never been found on a modern tree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 35 of 77 (610205)
03-27-2011 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:46 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
But the sedimentary rock consist of aged grains of sediment much older than the organism which formed the sediment into a fossil. It's all particles of rock compacted into sediment instead of loose, for example, in an ant hill or a beach.

I would assume that since the organic organism is no longer there that what is being calibrated would be the old particles of the sedimentary rock.

And you assume wrong, as you would know if you had read the message to which you're replying. What is being measured is the ages of igneous rocks.

In short, if dating methodology would date the ant hill by the rock in it ...

It wouldn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:46 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2011 12:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2011 9:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 77 (610208)
03-27-2011 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by lyx2no
03-27-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
lyx2no writes:

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise.

Ignoring data and making stuff up should not be counted as as interpretation.

And the premise that everyone will be to stupid to realize that that is what you are doing isn't working for you either.

Hi Lyx2no.

If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms. That, along with this matter of dating sediment rock making up fossils leads me to think dating methodology has a problem.

Dating methodology has a lot to do with interpreting observed data in the strata, and frankly, as well as whether the flood event happened. There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood. This, along with the problems I see with dating methodology and other debatable flood related arguments keep me in the floodist camp.

I'm not being stubborn as most think. I'm just being honest with myself. I can't deny what I think is logical and what makes sense about observations just to be scientifically correct in the eyes of conventional science types.

Common sense says loudly to me that if the same radiometric dating is used on the ant hill and the fossil, and the radioactive dating allegedly calibrates when the thing being dated was deposited/formed, both the modern ant hill and the fossil are going to show old dates on the meter.

Thus if a fossil was formed by the flood, 4500 years ago, the radioactive dating is going to date the older rock sediment formed by the organism and not the organism which formed what is being dated.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2011 9:32 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 03-28-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 03-28-2011 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 03-28-2011 12:33 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 03-28-2011 7:50 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 03-28-2011 9:00 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 44 by jar, posted 03-28-2011 11:10 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2011 10:35 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 77 (610209)
03-28-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2011 9:41 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate writes:


I would assume that since the organic organism is no longer there that what is being calibrated would be the old particles of the sedimentary rock.

And you assume wrong, as you would know if you had read the message to which you're replying. What is being measured is the ages of igneous rocks.

Dr Adequate writes:

In short, if dating methodology would date the ant hill by the rock in it ...

It wouldn't.

Dr Adequate, I thought most fossils are formed in sedimentary rock. Would you mind elaborating about that as well as "It wouldnt?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 9:41 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 12:14 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12925
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 38 of 77 (610210)
03-28-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buszsaw writes:

Thus if a fossil was formed by the flood, 4500 years ago, the radioactive dating is going to date the older rock sediment formed by the organism and not the organism which formed what is being dated.


This has been said several times before but I'm going to say it one more time, to clarify it for myself if nothing else. It is not the sediment containing the fossil that is being dated. It is the igneous layers above and below the sediment that are being dated. Even if that sandwich is turned upside down so that the oldest layer is on the top and the youngest layer is on the bottom, the age of the sediment is still between the ages of the other two layers.


If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 39 of 77 (610211)
03-28-2011 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Buzsaw
03-28-2011 12:06 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate, I thought most fossils are formed in sedimentary rock.

They are. But they're dated with reference to igneous rock, as I explained in my second post on this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Buzsaw, posted 03-28-2011 12:06 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1645
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


Message 40 of 77 (610212)
03-28-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms.

What atmospheric conditions would cause all the various dating methods to be wrong and yet still agree with each other? Show your work.

I'm not being stubborn as most think.

Except for the part were you repeatedly refuse to provide any support for your laughable position that some magical mythical flood occured and invalidated the various dating methods.

I'm just being honest with myself.

Really? Putting forth a position that you cannot/will not support is your defintion of being honest?


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5673
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 41 of 77 (610213)
03-28-2011 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Radiocarbon Dating Questions
If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms. That, along with this matter of dating sediment rock making up fossils leads me to think dating methodology has a problem.

Sorry, this has been dealt with. DeVries (1958) identified the need to calibrate radiocarbon samples because of fluctuations of C14 levels in the atmosphere. Since then a calibration curve has been worked out based on tree ring and other anular phenomena (which, incidentally, agree with one another) to correct for those atmospheric fluctuations.

Really, do you think those who use radiocarbon dating are stupid??? We want the most accurate dates we can get, and different experts over the years have identified potential sources of error and we have corrected for them.

Dating methodology has a lot to do with interpreting observed data in the strata, and frankly, as well as whether the flood event happened. There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood. This, along with the problems I see with dating methodology and other debatable flood related arguments keep me in the floodist camp.

You have no idea what scientists have come up with because anything that disagrees with your religious bias is rejected out of hand; you have kept yourself in deliberate ignorance/denial.

Until you know something about radiocarbon dating you would be better off listening to those who do, and refraining from expressing opinions based only on ancient tribal myths.

Once again, radiocarbon dating is an area with which I am familiar. If you have any specific questions I will be happy to answer them for you.

But if you continue to hold to a belief that a global flood at 4,350 years ago changed everything--in spite of the total disproof of that belief going back some 200 years--then there is little that you can learn from me or anyone.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12439
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 77 (610221)
03-28-2011 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Hi Buz,

Since you haven't responded to my post (which means I don't yet consider myself part of the discussion) and you're already going off the rails, I'm going to immediately assume a moderator role.

Buzsaw writes:

There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood.

If your conclusions are based upon the Bible, then you're doing religion. If they're based upon evidence gained using scientific methods, then you're doing science. This is a science thread, so please restrict your discussion to those of your conclusions having scientific support and begin describing for us the evidence that leads to these conclusions. Specifically:

If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms.

If this is somehow related to your question about dating, then in order to do your fair share for your side of the discussion you must describe the evidence supporting the view that the composition of both atmosphere and organisms was different prior to 4500 years ago.

I can't deny what I think is logical and what makes sense about observations just to be scientifically correct in the eyes of conventional science types.

You mention observations. If you're talking about observations of the real world that support your position then please describe them.

Common sense says loudly to me that if the same radiometric dating is used on the ant hill and the fossil, and the radioactive dating allegedly calibrates when the thing being dated was deposited/formed, both the modern ant hill and the fossil are going to show old dates on the meter.

Thus if a fossil was formed by the flood, 4500 years ago, the radioactive dating is going to date the older rock sediment formed by the organism and not the organism which formed what is being dated

You've been informed many times in this thread that it isn't the sedimentary layer containing the fossil that is dated, that it is igneous rock layers that bracket the sedimentary layer that are dated. Please do not make this mistake again.

I understand that JonF described a method that might, under the right circumstances, permit the actual sedimentary layer itself to be dated, but please do not become confused by that side discussion. By and large sedimentary layers are not dated directly, they're dated by the igneous layers that bracket them.

We're not going to have yet another thread where people beg you for evidence while decrying your lack of comprehension. Either do the work necessary to understand what people are saying while supporting your position with evidence or stop posting.

Edited by Admin, : Clarifying improvement.

Edited by Admin, : Clarify reason for assuming moderator role in para 1.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 43 of 77 (610224)
03-28-2011 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms.

So did the pre-Fludde atmosphere have uranium, rubidium-87, and potassium-40 floating around in it? Carbon-14 dating relies on stuff in the atmosphere, yes, but the things that get used to date dinosaurs don't. And the contents of organisms don't have doo-squat to do with the ages of, say, Devonian rocks. It isn't the fossil itself that gets dated, Buz.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28698
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 44 of 77 (610229)
03-28-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

lyx2no writes:

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise.

Ignoring data and making stuff up should not be counted as as interpretation.

And the premise that everyone will be to stupid to realize that that is what you are doing isn't working for you either.

Hi Lyx2no.

If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms. That, along with this matter of dating sediment rock making up fossils leads me to think dating methodology has a problem.

Well first, the evidence shows with a very, very high degree of confidence that the Biblical Flood never happened. You have been given that evidence, for example in Message 28 and you have always refused to even discuss such evidence.

We do know what the atmosphere was like before the dates for the imaginary Biblical Flood.

We have actual samples of the atmosphere from before the date of the imaginary Biblical Flood. To keep repeating that we don't know what the atmosphere was like before the imaginary Biblical Flood just pitifully wrong.

Buz, when you post nonsense that is factually wrong, where you have been shown time after time that you are factually wrong, there can be only a few explanations.

You could be simply too dumb to be able to understand the explanations.

You could be be crazy, delusional and in need of medical psychiatric care.

Or you could be willfully ignorant, lying for Jesus, perhaps because you fear finding out that your faith is all based on lies.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6098
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 45 of 77 (610257)
03-28-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
I want to get back to the questions in my mind about radiometric dating methods which scientists use to date fossils. I'm not satisfied that anyone has adequately answered those questions.

Just for gits and shiggles, let me give it a try.

First, you need to understand what radiometric dating is actually measuring. What it measures is how long a mineral has been closed. That is, how long the isotopes in question have been locked in place. For example, in liquid rock (i.e. magma) gasses, like argon, escape quite easily. When the rock goes from liquid to solid this isn't the case anymore. With respect to argon, the rock becomes closed when it solidifies. Any argon produced by the decay of potassium-40 is now trapped in the rock. Therefore, by measuring the amount of potassium and argon in the rock you can tell how long ago it went from liquid to solid.

So what happens if that solid rock gets weathered and turned into a sediment further down the stream? Well, dating the chunks from that weathered rock can not tell you how old that sediment is. It can only tell you how long ago the source rock formed. This is why sediments are not generally dated. Instead, igneous rocks that solidified in their current position above and below the sediments are used to give a date range for the formation of that sedimentary layer.

Clear as mud (pun intended)?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017