Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

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. 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. 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. 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. So what? And does this occur in all samples? How do you know? 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. 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. You'd have to explain what the impact would be. Why is the randomness affected? 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. 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. 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. {Added link in 2nd paragraph, to the source topic and message. - Adminnemooseus 12/27/05}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-27-2005 04:30 PM

Golfer, we need the reference to the material. This is more gibberish. You have been asked to explain such stuff before. You have, as yet not responded to any such requests. At this point EVERYTHING you have posted is unsupported crap. ?? I doubt very much that there is a single belief that Snellings and I have in common. What little I've seen of his isn't even honest much less right. We do not share beliefs. What are you talking about here? Sandwich dating IS in agrrement with the scientific evidence. You are simply wrong.

That is not what I'm asking about.We all know that. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing.If you think otherwise you have to show why.The reference requested was the Ozzie C-14 issue -- Snellings.You have, meanwhile, answered none of the various questions put to you. Zero!This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2005 10:35 PM

If you think you have anything coherent to say about the correlations please take them to that thread. It is not apparent from the above that you have read more than a few posts in that thread. It can not be argued that tree rings average 2 rings per year. It is very clear that almost universally they do NOT.If you think you have good evidence for anything else that would be a good opening post for a new thread. If not that then you can add something to the correlations thread. But you'll have to read and understand it first. Again: huh?I'll look at your reference and get back to you.

That is indeed an interesting find. It is unfortunate it doesn't appear to have been published properly. It hasn't been scrutinized carefully by anyone it appears. This is especially true given some of Snellings past history.However, there isn't enough information to answer all concerns. And the concerns need to be answered just because this is such an interesting find. It is, indeed, anomolous. It has to be examined very carefully and reproduced as it has to stand up against many 1,000's of results that contradict it. It is too bad it doesn't seem to have been done very throughly or examined very carefully.The questions that need to be answered are:1) Is the wood actually "encased" in the basalt?I have been on just cooling lava flows in Hawaii. The Ohi trees there are resistant to heat but it is rare that any are intact. In the place where I walked the only trace of trees of about 10 to 15 cm diameter were the empty glowing holes. They had been completly and totally destroyed between the intial flow and 3 days later when the lava was solid enough on top to be safe.The fact that the initial samples were lost makes this difficult to determine. The other problem is that coreing into it makes it impossible to tell what exactly was found.I can't tell what wood was sampled from where and, of course, one of the dates, at least, is at the upper end of where C-14 dating can be used. A million year old sample can date at the end when small quantitites of C-14 are produced in place.Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that Snellings has done a very careful job nor has he presented this information in a useful manner. At face value it appears to be an interesting anomoly that should be reproduced. With his past history it may not be wise to take Snellings at face value however.

Reading over the quote that Golfer is eliding I think he didn't do any damage to what it was saying.Golfer thinks it helps his case I guess even if it doesn't.

Since the dating of fossils older than 4o to 50 thousand years has nothing to do with this: yes you can.

The statement I made was the C-14 dating has nothing to do with dating fossils as old as 200,000 years (and, of course, older). This is a FACT! How do you know this? I think you are very wrong. Nuclear physics is a pretty exact science. It is possible to determine energies, cross sections and the like. Are you saying this has not been done? Be careful where you are taking this! The majority of Christians and theologians would consider it blasphemous to name your god Loki. Again, how do you know this? If God does a really good, God-like job of faking it then there is no difference between appearing to be old and actually being old. No one could tell which was the case, right? So if you're made happy by adding an explict or implied (God made it look like...) in front of all scientific statements then everything is hunky-dory. It is however, considered to be really terrible theology.

Once more. C-14 has NOTHING to do with the dating of the olderst H. sapiens. It is outside the range of C-14 dating so it means nothing in this discussion.

The materials around the older fossils are directly dated. These are collected with care between undisturbed layers.I finally see what you are onto with your comments on C-14. The C-14 already shows that some life is, in FACT, far older than the oldest tree rings.You seem to think that only by directly dating a bit of material from a fossil can the fossil be dated. Why is that all that you will accept.Of course, accepting that gives some dates of in excess of 40,000 years. The dilution you go on about does NOT answer the question.Please explain your logic for thinking anything else. You make statments but NEVER actually give any reasoning behind them. You are starting to look very blinkered, stubborn and even a bit silly.I notice you have yet to add a post to the new Correlations Part III thread. Is it a bit too much for you to handle? Are you perhaABE I do not understand why this is an issue. What exactly is wrong with these dates and why is the oldest primate being millions of years old a problem? You continue to make statements without explaining them. You are becoming boring.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-15-2005 10:58 PM

You seem to type random words. Is it about time you actually explained what you are talking about?

What is apparent from this post is that you don't like the results. You give no reasons why you don't like it.You make no attempt whatsoever to explain the correlation not just to 6,000 years but all the way back to over 30,000 years. Until you do that your gibberish remains exactly that.

Utter and obvious nonsense. It should be clear to you that Snelling does not believe it "appears" old. He wouldn't be doing what he is doing if he believed that. It is sometimes necessary to think for just a minute before typing rot.You were also warned what blasphemous theology this is. You appear to be operating as an agent of Satan by making such statements. Not a concern to me but maybe some Christians would find it a bit insulting. More gibberish!I have a sneaking hunch you think that the if carbon is leached out then there is less of it so the material dates older. Unfortunately since what is measured is C-14 as a portion of all the carbon this doesn't make any sense.And again, would you try to explain just what you do mean and think you understand. So far all you've produced is nonsense.

I understand that Golfer is "whatever". He will never make any sense. You are wasting your time arguing with someone who has no more sense than a poorly constructed AI routine. It will go on forever.

My comment was a friendly reminder to edge and others that to think one can discuss anything at all with someone who is incapable of rational thought is a waste of time. It is a simple statment of fact. Golfer (aka whatever) has had ample time to demonstrate an ability to read and reason. He has utterly failed to do so. I think it is unfair to allow someone to go on too long without offering them a warning that they are wasting thier valuable time.