A simple question for a complex issue

It depends on what you want to debate. If ID then there are a couple of threads for that:
Intelligent Design

---

Common sense isn't

took a look at whatever's link to the icr website. read the article. kind of disturbed that only two of the references for the article came from outside the creationist community. also, the experimenter is not mentioned by name. the guy who wrote the article is, of course, named, but his source isn't. why would you not name your source in the article? why would you call him the experimentor two or three times and not use his name?one more thing--if all the rocks surrounding these zircons are giving off helium as their radioactive components decay, isn't it possible for helium from outside sources to get trapped and held longer inside the crystal lattice of the zircons? quartz, which is also a silicate like zircon, traps helium in its crystal lattice. maybe this is why helium content is not a reliable dating method--too many outside factors can skew the results.

SpinyNorman73,Some testimonial evidences bearing witness to the age of the flood, the amount of fossils themselves bearing witness, Paleontological Testimony, Atlantisquest.com and Can the Redwoods date the Flood?, Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchP.S. Russel Humphrey is a nucleur physists, explains that zircons closure temperature is +196 degrees centigrade, and the retention temperature for the argon to stay diffused in the zircons for 1.5 billion years would of been a different temp -196 degrees centigrade, because everyone knows the granites in the earth is warm, the zircons can only be an open system, helium is diffusing at too fast a rate, they would be losing helium as fast as nucleur decay produced it, etc...

The Pleistocene extinctions (plural) do not and cannot have any relevance to a supposed global flood. They occurred over too long a period of time, at too many different times, too long ago, and affected far too few species.Can redwoods date the Flood? No. The "evidence" proffered is simply wishful thinking.As for Humphreys and the RATE group, they're very confused and (it goes without saying) wrong. I know you won't read or understand the refutations, but for the benefit of others What about Humphreys excess helium arguments and Re: AiG thinks it has a dating "bombshell", and Re: helium in zircons means young earth?.

quote:

---

because everyone knows the granites in the earth is warm, the zircons can only be an open system, helium is diffusing at too fast a rate, they would be losing helium as fast as nucleur decay produced it,

---

You seem to be somewhat confused. Do you realize that you just argued that the zircons may be older than the measured ages?

The pleistocene extinction has relevance to the dating of the biblical flood, however, were all aware of the problems with C-14 dating, these errors make the Pleistocene extinctions support the biblical flood. The Redwoods gives an approximate age of the flood, Dendrochronology (tree ring dating), etc...The Humphreys are not confused, I find that interesting, perhaps the geologist are the ones confused, you don't see other Nucleur physists disputing the Humphreys, in fact it was a non-creationist lab that did the analysis, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

There are no problems with C-14 dating of the Pleistocene.The redwoods do not give the age of the Flood. Bristlecone pines (Prometheus and Methuselah and maybe others), creosote bushes (King Clone), King's Holly in Tasmania, Box Hucklebery in Pennsylvania, and Mongarlowe Mallee in Australia are all older than the redwoods (up to 40,000-odd years old); why try to date the flood by the redwoods and not these plants? Answer: the redwoods give the answer that fits the questioner's preconceptions, so they ignore the other evidence.See Oldest Living Thing(There's a fungus somewhere in the Pacific Northwest that is incredibly old, I don't have a reference offhand). I find it amusing that you are SO ignorant that you don't even know that Russell Humphreys is one person whose name ends in s. Of course you do see other nuclear physicists and geologists disputing his claims, as in the links that I posted. And no matter who performed the analyses, it's Humphreys that is trying to force the results to fit his preconceptions, and doing a poor job of it.

Its a common fact that some trees lay down more than one tree ring per year, There are problems with C-14 dating, how else would they date fungus, you might be interested to check out Walt Browns site, Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood and type on Walts goggle search engine: How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?I find it interesting that Russell Humphreys has published articles in Scientific Journals, and speaks on radiometric dating.P.S. Russell Humphreys was confronted by a geologists, who was in error about closure temps, & retention temps, etc... What's the name, if any, nucleur physicists, that have confronted Russell Humphreys, etc...
News | The Institute for Creation Research[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

No, it is a fact that on occasion some species lay down more than one ring. It is not a common thing though. It is also a fact that trees may barely lay down a ring in a year if conditions are bad.This is why multiple species and trees are used and cross matched. You explanation doesn't touch the actual processes in dendrochronology.If you sources are trying to make it this simple they are misleading you.And if you wish to go to the C-14 dating thread and bring up Brown's ideas there. Well, good luck.
http://64.4.8.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=77dd5fbc4c0... ml%23182

---

Common sense isn't

NosyNed, It does appear that spring and fall rains would cause 2 or more seasonal growth rings, but agree in the tropics with no seasonal rainfall fluctuations, you wouldn't necessarily have any annual growth rings, etc...SpinyNorman73, Dr. Robert Gentry's is another nucleur physicist, he found polonium radioactive halo's in the granite crystals shows the entire granite basement rock's of the earth were formed instantly, these radioactive halo's shouldn't be within granites crystals, he used an analogy of Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water would disappear quickly unless the water was frozen instantly, these polonium atoms only exists for seconds before they disappear, because they exists as radioactive polonium halo's, within the granites support they were supernaturally created, etc...
Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates[This message has been edited by whatever, 01-18-2004]

I don't know about your water, but when I make ice, there's bubbles in it. (And there's nothing special about my freezer, so the ice isn't freezing instantly.) What's even weirder is that the water I use doesn't have bubbles when I put it in.I guess I'm saying that's a crappy analogy. I don't know anything about polonium halos but I can't find anything in the scientific literature when I search.

No it does not appear. Do you have back up for this? Since tree ring dating, like some other types has been shown to work. Why do you think this is a problem?whatever, you need to investigate the possibility that you are being lied to by those you think are on your side.

---

Common sense isn't

crashfrog, Gentry gave an analogy, think it was his special video on the granites, he used an analogy of basalt lava's not showing this phenomenom, because of the time it take for lava to cool, none of the other rocks on earth show this phenonmenom, if you melt granites it ceases to be granite, and don't believe its possible to form granites by any method known to man, they were supernaturally created.
P.S. Your ice bubbles, is likely air bubbles, air dissolves in water, etc...

NosyNed, Don Batten Ph D, he said some pines can have up to 5 growth rings per year, he explained this would bring the bristle cone pine, into the era of the biblical flood, etc... Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis

are not prone to double rings. In rare cases doubles have been seen but they are very faint and easy to identify.In fact bristlecone pines are prone to missing up to 5% of their rings in an individual specimen. Thus any age is actually a lower limit - they are if anything older than their rings indicate.But this misses the point anyway. The chronologies are the result of many core samples from many trees that are cross referenced to build the chronolgy.Currently, including dead trees, with cross referencing the chronology now goes back some 9000 years. Thats approx. 7000 BCE. Kind of kills the Noah's flood.