. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Except that they don't. The depth of the snow or ice layer has nothing to do with the annual layer formation -- those are marked by different phenomena, different chemisty, and what you have been reading is a typical creatortionista shell game misrepresentation of the truth. They mix storm layers with annual layers. Why? Because they need to have the dating method be false.
Response 2. I agree with the top half. Yes the planes were buried under snow. The fact they only take samples from "stable ice fields" is erroneous, explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier. And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again. How do they know that it's always been like that? Short answer: they don't Response 3. Couldn't be melt layers that would ruin the theory. wait...., they are melt layers! The assumption is that it's summer/winter etc., not hot/cold.
Nope, you missed again. The ice that falls\forms in the winter is different from what fall\forms in the summer -- see if you can find that detail. I suggest research from the scientific sources, not creatortionistas ...
Response 1. Is a red herring. The method of dating isn't in question. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Is your typo intentional or accidental? Your article reference said "thousands", not "millions" (we don't have ice core sequences in the millions of years).
But your creationwiki article gives no evidence even of thousands. It talks about thicknesses, and implies that this must equate to thousands of years. The thickness of these layers gets thinner and thinner as one goes down due to the increasing pressure.
I think your YEC article is making an unwarranted uniformitarian assumption that the relation of ice thickness to time span is constant. It is not.
uniformitarianism has been verified? Stop the presses! I'd like to see the article on that. You really like saying science. It's like your religious mantra. Because if SCIENCE says it! What science? Science is your god and idol. lol
How does uniformitarianism not apply to this thread? We are talking about dating, so the fundemental aspect of radiometric dating is based on a religious worldview. Your religiousity scares me.
There's a LOT of confusion here.
1) "Uniformitarianism" vs "catastrophism" was a valid historical debate a century or so ago, restricted to discussions of geological processes. Uniformitarianism initially won out, but the modern picture is a combination of both. The impact event that killed the dinosaurs is an example. David Raup wrote a nice popular level book on this a few years back (Maybe The Nemesis Affair?). But this has little to do with modern dating methods. In fact, modern dating methods make the discussion moot because their dates do not depend on the rates of geological processes. Note: the YEC application of "uniformitarianism" to all of science is just plain wrong. For most areas of science the term is irrelevant.
2) Radiocarbon was initially based on "uniformitarian" assumptions (decay rate is constant, natural abundance ratio in upper atmosphere is constant). Further research has verified the first assumption, and given minor corrections to the second. Calibrating to tree ring dates avoids these uniformitarian assumptions, BTW.
3) One's "uniformitarian philosophy" or religion does not change the facts or reliability of the dating methods.
4) Some of the early developers of radiocarbon dating were evangelical Christians. They did not treat science as their god or idol.
No, it's not a red herring. It is how the assumption of uniformitarianism is justified. When different independent methods give the same answers, either the assumptions are correct, or we are witnessing a remarkable set of coincidences. For some reason, creationists prefer to believe the world is filled with remarkable, unexplainable coincidences.
The method of dating isn't in question.
Huh? What are you talking about? You and your link are questioning this method of dating. You are confused.
The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.
Huh? Who dated the airplanes? Not even your link claimed that anyone dated the airplanes. Your link just talks about the planes being buried under a lot of ice.
...explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier.
Because they can actually observe the movement of the ice.
And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again.
Sure. Because the assumption of uniformitarianism matches with actual observations.
Here is one abstract about volcanic ash found in an ice core in Greenland. The minerology of the ash is very similar to ash taken from a sediment core in the Atlantic. If the uniformitarian assumption is correct, then the two dates of these ash deposits should match. There's no other reason why these two different dating methods should give the same ages.
And the ages do match up. Just as the uniformitarian assumption predicts. To a creationist, this is another amazing coincidence among a huge number of coincidences that a creationist must accept. To someone with a little bit of sense, though, this is not surprising. One can count annual layers in the ice. One can use oxygen isotope dating to date layers in ocean sediment cores. And, seeing how these two methods agree with each other (and with examples in other dating methods), it appears that our confidence in our assumptions are justified.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.
I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
quote:It says that Potasium-argon does not work for recent dates. I wonder, why not? why only for ages older than 100kya?
Because it has a long half-life. Not enough Argon will have accumulated for an accurate reading. It is intended for measuring things millions and billions of years old, not thousands.
quote:A similar question for radiocarbon dating. If radiocarbon dating is only useful for a maximum date of 100,000 why is it that when dating anything older we would get "back nonsense numbers"?
Usually I think its from creationists contaminating the sample.
Radiocarbon, like all things, does not work in all situations or all circumstances. Honest researchers are aware of this, therefore they avoid carbon dating things that are likely to give inaccurate results. Creationists on the other hand will rush to carbon date things like 45 million year old petrified 'wood.' Also, its the ratio of C12 to C14 that is important. If you date something millions of years old and say that you found carbon there, that doesn't mean anything. Also, implying that radiocarbon dating doesn't work when tested in situations where it is not meant to work is like saying computers don't work because you just threw one in a volcano and it doesn't turn on anymore.
hello,everyone ,I am damjy,it is my first post in this forum,I think it is necessary to make a short introduction,Don't you think so?I am a new member and I join in you just now,I am so glad to be here.Have a good time .
This might be a good thread for me to seek some information from those who know. The lack of radioisotopes with half-lives less than about 80,000,000 years on the Earth is good evidence that it has to be billions of years old. The usual YEC explanation is there was a period of rapid decay at Creation and during and/or after the Flood. I believe the short-lived isotopes are observed to appear and disappear as expected in supernovae. My question is :- have the same radioisotopes been observed to be absent in the Sun and in Moon rocks? If so this would mean YEC would have to explain why Sun and Moon were affected by the Flood's episode of rapid decay. Are the isotopes with shorter half-lives e.g. 1 My able to be observed in younger stars? If so that would suggest the Sun did not have to be made without them. Thanks to any who can enlighten me. As a related thought I wonder if isotope abundance is how a star is determined to be young.
Technetium is present in some Red Giant stars that are actively dredging up material from their interiors - where fresh technetium is being synthesized by nuclear reactions. Googling "solar technetium" turns up some very old references that raise the possibility of some in the Sun, but more, later references that say probably the spectral lines are misassigned. The Moon doesn't seem to have any.
Some Cretinists claim the the "accelerated nuclear decay" was during their Creation Week - so they will just say that the Sun and Moon were made without Tc or were subject to accelerated decay as well.
Want to start dating in London? Want a committed relationship in London? Feeling lonely in London? Here at Elect Club Classic you can search for professional Londoners who work in the same area as you. Mainly designed for professional singles looking to find that special companion, in a fast and effective way. Only those who are serious about finding a committed relationship will be taken on as clients.
Looking at professionals introduction agencies or dating agencies in London or beyond? Elect Club Classic has clients all over UK like Paris, Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Leeds, Manchesters, Nottingham-Leicester including London.
Dating services Over 40s have become very popular in the past few years among all age groups. If this is your first time of Over 40s dating,Elect Club Classic, the leading Over 40 personal introduction agency is here to assist you to find a perfect relationship you are searching for. We are living longer these days. They say that 40 is the new 30. Find here the best guidance to find the perfect personal introduction.
Dating for over 40s in UK- Electclub classic : Electclub the No.1 dating agency for professionals in UK has brought the Electclub Classic for UK singles over 40s. Many people believe that life begins after 40, and we believe in this too. Electclub classic understand that the older you get, it can be harder to meet you faces so we have developed a dating site specifically for seniors over 40s. Its an executive dating agency dedicated to seniors and it believe ‘life is for living’ no matter what age we are. Visit us @ electclubclassic.co.uk.