|
Author
|
Topic: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
quote:
Scientists can not yet prove scientifically thorium in the natural is capable of produce C-14 in the earth. Without scientific evidence to support the evolutionist belief it is so, its only a statement of faith.
This is a silly statement, especially considering that nothing will ever be proven to your satisfaction. And after all, it's not about proof, anyway. It's all about feasible explanations and evidence, neither of which you have. It is logical to assume that radioactive decay explains background levels of C14 in organic deposits. We have evidence of uranium and thorium in some coals and we know that their decay in the presence of nitrogen (one of the most common elements) will produce C14. We have the materials and the mechanism to explain the anomalies. This hypothesis explains why the levels of C14 are so low (at the very limits of detection) as well as the fact that some coals have no C14. It also explains why the actual radiocarbon dates for these materials is at the theoretical limits (not beyond) for the radiocarbon technique. When a bunch of dates turn out at that limit, it raises a red flag to anyone who knows ANYTHING about this subject. What have you got, other than wishful thinking? If you deny that radioactive elements are concentrated in some coal deposits, you need to check this out: USGS.gov | Science for a changing world
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 7:00 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
Fossils are formed by catastrophy a burial event by something we all agree appears old. What do you mean? How does a 'catastrophy burial event' appear old? Why could it not be young?
The only problem is the evolutionists make this leap of faith that the fossils that got buried too are old. Hunh? How does an ancient event bury a recent organism?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 7:00 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
edge, I'm in agreement with Ned that nucleur energies and such is a pretty exacting science. The fact that Ned can not find them explaining these energies and such being capable of producing C-14 via thorium decay is the issue. So, having a source of slow neutrons and plenty of nitrogen to work with doesn't even remotely suggest to you that background levels of C14 could be produced locally? And why do you not address the rest of my post? Why don't ALL coals have C14? Why are all derived ages very close to the limit of the C14 method? The point is that in situ C14 formation answers too many questions for the normal person to ignore. And your stock answer is, 'you can't prove it'. To which I repeat my argument that nothing will ever prove it to you. I wouldn't expect it to, because you are an absolutist. The point is that many thousands of people more familiar with the technique than you DO have confidence in the method. I repeate my question: What is your explanation for these levels of C14 found in some coals.
It appears leaching is a bigger issue. That C-14 is being diluted explaining how coal dates 30,000 to 50,000 years. This dilution factor explains coal not dating 5,000 years actually indirectly supports the Creationists. Sure. I don't suppose you would accept as possible that the technique might actually be giving you a 50ky age. Everything is smoke, mirrors and tricks, to you. And no, this does not help your case. Most samples are collected so as to minimize or eliminate the effect of leaching. That is one reason we do not allow YECs to do this at home.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 37 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 8:55 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
Message 43 of 300 (269848)
12-15-2005 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by johnfolton
12-15-2005 10:37 PM
|
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
Ned, The issue appears to be that age of African Eve being 200,000 years and the oldest primate being millions of years because of indirect dating. Why?
Directly dating Coal and Oil for C-14 is but an extension of tree ring dating (direct dating). Please explain.
That coal and oil has any C-14 after dilution supports all life is not older than the oldest tree ring correlation. A nice assertion. HOw do you support it? How do you dilute coal and/or oil? Why do you think that scientists wouldn't recognize dilution?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 10:37 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 61 of 300 (270236)
12-17-2005 12:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by johnfolton
12-15-2005 11:02 PM
|
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
edge, Leaching is considered a problem and might explain why some coals have no C14. Might'a. The problem is that most coals are leached by groundwater. If uranium is present, why would one NOT have thorium or radon as decay products?
Perhaps there was a world flood that leached out C-14 like perhaps as my link suggested leachate is the problem.
Thorium decays slowly, C-14 is unstable yet decays quickly. Please explain how a flood leaches coal deposits? Why would it no leach all deposits?
Perhaps this is the problem why its not a match, because they are both decaying and its C-14 thats the more unstable. Hunh? What does 'more unstable' mean? You are either producing thorium or you are not. If there is uranium, you are likely to produce thorium eventually.
Katheline Hunt article written in 2002 says Dr. Gove and his colleagues are researching into this. I doubt that it is a burning question to most people.
If you check it out C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere. It is produced by bombardment of nitrogen by therma neutrons. Why should it matter where it occurs?
This is all thats been proven, perhaps Dr. Gove is still researching its been almost 4 years and nothing new from Katheline. Sorry but them are the facts. That is where the C14 for radicarbon dating is produced. So why do YECs insist that it applies to other sources?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by johnfolton, posted 12-15-2005 11:02 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 62 of 300 (270238)
12-17-2005 12:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by johnfolton
12-16-2005 12:07 PM
|
|
Re: Sandwich dating and c14
Coragyps, I did not say I disagree'd with all of the correlations like those agreeing with tree rings. I don't agree that coal, oil is 30,000 years but 5,000 years. Why? Because C-14 is present meaning coal is not millions of years old. So, the difference between 5k and 30k years is just a detail? You haven't yet explained why all these maximum ages seem to cluster at 30k to 60ky.
Everyone asks for scientific evidence, no one is producing the scientific evidence for Katheline Hunts belief. Its just an evolutionists word salad, without the evidence. You're making this up as you go aren't you? There is solid evidence for radiocarbon dating related to varves, ice cores, tree ring correlation, etc. That you simply reject the data is irrelevant. YOu have been presented with data that you cannot refute.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by johnfolton, posted 12-16-2005 12:07 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 81 of 300 (270485)
12-18-2005 12:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by johnfolton
12-17-2005 11:07 PM
|
|
Re: Let me ask frankly
Jazzns, I mean't you can date rocks by C14 but to you its meaningless, cause of the radiometric ages. No. It is meaningless because radiocarbon dating is based on atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you can give us the the isotopic distribution and history of magmatic carbon dioxide, you might have an argument. However, no one is doint this kind of dating except for YECs. That is why we usually don't allow them to try this at home.
To me its meaningless presense in even inorganics supports my believe that radiometric dating supports an appearance of age, but not the age of the earth. Sure, Golfer: The misapplication of a technique proves that it doesn't work! By that logic, I can prove to you that the internal combustion engine is not proven to work (simply by using the wrong fuel or removing a few wires); even though thousand of vehicles drive by my office every day...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2005 11:07 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
|
|
Message 82 of 300 (270487)
12-18-2005 12:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by johnfolton
12-17-2005 10:53 PM
|
|
I agree C-14 dating supports the creationists biblical flood and their glaciers. You are being silly and childish here.
Lake Suitsu tighter correlations correlates to the time of the Creationists 5,000 year old flood. You inability to show this we will take as an admission of failure.
Varves in the natural at times lain down quite quickly. Lower varves could be formed suddenly by the creationists flood. And your evidence for this is?
Something drastic event happened 5,000 years that correlates to the tighter varve correlations. 'Tighter varve correlations'? What do you mean? And what principle do you use to interpret a catastrophic event?
Kettle lakes are said to be formed by a big chunk of ice floating depressing upon the soft flood sediments forming a kettle lake. However it was formed something changed 5,000 years ago. Ummm, no. Not that I know of.
Marine life and terrestrial life stratified within post flood sediments beneath Lake Suitsu iceberg would of been anerobically digested. The gasing upward leaving only the cellose(leaves, twigs) behind to abosorb the C14 as it slowly gassing upward. Are you multi-lingual or something? Your passages make very little sense.
The increase in C14 gasing upward naturally would cause flood sediments to stratify older with increasing depth. In anerobic digestion the farmers use this scientific principle to produce methane. Degassing has nothing to do with primary stratification. And why would the principle of superposition not work under these circumstances?
In Wyoming they are tapping the methane fields, its not possible for your varves to not date old based on the sciences. What you see is just an appearance of age. You do not support your assertion here. What is your evidence for this?
In the Burmuda triangle the methane gases are frozen due to pressures but at times it burps upwards. Oil rigs have succumed to methane burps, changing the waters density. And?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by johnfolton, posted 12-17-2005 10:53 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
And? I see nothing here to indicate a flood. Please explain.
G: Kettle lakes are said to be formed by a big chunk of ice floating depressing upon the soft flood sediments forming a kettle lake. However it was formed something changed 5,000 years ago. e: Ummm, no. Not that I know of. G: 4. kettle lakes a. depressions in glacial till b. sometimes due to melting ice block, sometimes irregularities in the moraine c. irregularly shaped (emphasis added) Thank you for making my point.
G: The increase in C14 gasing upward naturally would cause flood sediments to stratify older with increasing depth. In anerobic digestion the farmers use this scientific principle to produce methane. e: Degassing has nothing to do with primary stratification. And why would the principle of superposition not work under these circumstances? G: Were talking age stratification correlations not primary stratification (the undigestable organic cellose leaves, twigs) being affected by anerobic digestion digesting organics. Its the gasing of C-14 thats affecting age stratification, giving you an appearance of age, but not the age of the lower varves. Then the problem is that C14 would be preferentially NOT degassed since it is easier for bacteria to digest lighter carbon compounds and heavier carbon dioxide would not migrate as rapidly. Are you beginning to see why we do not use this technique on rocks?
I agree Superposition is the evolutionists explaination of the organics presense based on methane gases. So were apparently in agreement that there is bacterial gasing going on. Right? Yes, but the results are not what you would think. Nor can you show that degassing results in replacement of original carbon. Why would degassed carbon dioxide dissociate and then allow the C14 to replace carbon in other organic compounds? Why is there any kind of correlation of dates with older to younger sediments? Why would we radiocarbon date a rock that has undergone any kind of diagenesis? Why would you use this technique on rocks anyway? The gasses coming off of decaying material in the sedimentary column are NOT atmospheric. Your whole premise makes no sense, whatsoever.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by johnfolton, posted 12-18-2005 1:37 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Edge, The tighter correlations simply agree with the creationist model given the error associated with C-14. You keep saying this, but you do not support it. What correlation are you talking about?
Given evidence of coal (peat layer) dated an glacier to 11,400 years and due to error and that the age of the peat layer needs to be subtracted all weighs heavily in favor of the creationists model. Please explain. You keep making assertions, but not supporting them.
A huge block of ice need not land on glacial till, it only needs to float in as the creationists flood waters washed off the earth. This is not what you describe. THere is nothing about kettle lakes formed by floating ice.
ral carbonates are they not a part of anaerobic digestion, bubbling upwards would tend to be left behind. Please explain the relevance of this to anything.
agree with you that C14 is slightly heavier than C12. Its mineral carbonates bonding more readily to the cellose organics than C12 mineral carbonates. Are you saying that C12 being slightly lighter would form CO2 more readily leaving C14 to form mineral carbonates? This message has been edited by AdminJar, 12-18-2005 11:55 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by johnfolton, posted 12-18-2005 6:08 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Re: C14 and the Layer Cake
Nuggin, Topsoil contamination happens quickly. ... And the relevance of this is exactly what? You do realize that scientists go to great lengths to mitigate or eliminate contamination effects (of course, YECs don't because it is not in their interest to do so), do you not? Just how much contaminated groundwater do you expect to flow through the ice fields of Greenland or Antarctica? How much do you expect to flow through clay sediments in Lake Suigetsu? Why would there be an exchange with primary organic material? Why would scientists attempt to analyze material that has a chance of contamination? You make many assumptions, G, unlike the typical YEC rhetoric.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by johnfolton, posted 12-19-2005 12:20 PM | | johnfolton has replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Golfer, Rox has you running in circles...
R: Why should it be there, Golfer? G: Anerobic Digestion bacteria and sulfate reducing bacteria in Methane Production. Hunh? Totally meaningless. Why should the talc be there? Please give us reactions and explain where the components come from. Also explain why scientists would completely miss the presence of talc and the fact that these fossils must be completely replaced by the the time you metamorphose the sediments.
R: I very much doubt if talc will ever be found in those lake sediments as talc is not generally (if ever!) the result of primary sedimentary processes - it is predominantly a metamorphic mineral resulting from the alteration of carbonates (e.g., dolomite). G: Anerobic digestion is not the direct result of Primary Sedimentation but the direct result of a lack of oxygen. And that has what to do with talc? Please try to focus, Golfer. Please try to provide the bilogical anaerobic reactions that give rise to talc in lacustrine sediments. Either you don't have clue what you are talking about, or you are leaving out a whole lot of steps, Golfer.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
edge, Talc can be considered a mineral... Thank you for this stunning revelation.
... so it could be in solution, ... Of course, but under what conditions might this happen?
... but there is calcite and gypsum that too are resistant to acid treatment. And? Are you saying that there are calcite and gypsum in the Suigitsu sediments? Golfer, if we keep this up much longer, I expect we will have the entire Dana's manual in Lake Suigetsu.
Talc, a word derived form the greek word talq meaning pure, is a unique mineral (Perkins, 2002). The mineral talc can mean many different things. First, talc is considered a mineral containing hydrate magnesium silicate ( U.S. Geological Survey Publications Warehouse). Second, talc can be considered a rock. Moreover, sometimes talc is called soapstone or steatite. It may contain proportions of other minerals like chlorite. So now we have steatite and chlorite in the Suigetsu sediments. I wonder why no geologists never noticed this.
Physical Characteristics of Talc Talc, like all minerals, has many interesting characteristics about it. All minerals have physical properties associated with them. This is how we are able to separate minerals into groups and classify every mineral in its own unique way. We must first see if talc meets all the requirements for it to be called a mineral. If talc meets all the basic requirements below, then we can consider it a mineral. Do you consider this to be evidence that there is talc in the Suigetsu sediments? Is you logic that if talc exists anywhere in nature that it should be in Lake Suigetsu? I'm having a hard time following your reasoning.
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
edge, Scientists are supposed to rule out possible contamination perhaps thats why they did not test for these minerals. And that is my point. This is what they largely do (as opposed to how YECs do research). And why, then, should they 'test for these minerals'? Are they all incompetent?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by johnfolton, posted 12-21-2005 12:29 PM | | johnfolton has not replied |
|
edge
Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 01-09-2002
|
Coragyps, Talc is water insoluable more like a polymer that should protect the dolomites in the pores of the organics. And why do you suppose that researchers completely missed this dolomite being armored by talc? More incompetence?
|
™ Version 4.2