Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Feedback about reliability of dating
Sardonica
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 77 (261704)
11-20-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
08-31-2005 2:18 PM


Dating Dinosaurs
Quoting Frank Sherwin, M.S.
"Evolutionist Mary H. Schweitzer of North Carolina State University has discovered flexible blood vessels inside the fossilized thighbone of a "68-70 million year old" Tyrannosaurus rex1 from the Hell Creek formation in eastern Montana. Further investigation revealed round microscopic structures that look to be cells inside the hollow vessels. Even to the untrained eye, the tissue samples look as if the animal died recently. . . The evidence seems to indicate the T. rex fossil is”well, young. Young as in just centuries-old, certainly not an age of millions of years."
"This is not the first time that puzzling soft tissue has been unearthed. Nucleic acid (DNA) taken from wet "fossil" magnolia leaves allegedly 17-20 million years old have been discovered.3 Fragments of genetic material up to 800 base pairs long were recovered”amazing considering it does not take long for water to degrade DNA . . ."
Is there an answer to this contradiction between dating and new discovery which I just have not uncovered yet or have carelessly overlooked? Can anyone make sense of these new discoveries and what past research has informed us about our dating techniques as it pertains to dinosaurs and other forms of life? If these claims are true, that is that dinosaurs are only centuries old and our dating techniques are anywhere from somewhat to incredibly invalid, what will the effect upon evolution and creationism be? Can anyone shed light on this?
Link to full article:
The Institute for Creation Research
Sources:
1. Schweitzer, M. H., et al.,Science, vol. 307, no. 5717, pp. 1952-1955, 25 March 2005.
2. Boswell, E., Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005.
3. Golenberg, E., et al., Nature 344:656-8.
4. Cano, S., Science, vol. 268, no. 5213, p. 977, Research News, 19 May 1995

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 08-31-2005 2:18 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 4:28 AM Sardonica has not replied
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 11-21-2005 6:50 AM Sardonica has not replied
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2005 8:00 AM Sardonica has not replied

  
Sardonica
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 77 (262722)
11-23-2005 3:05 PM


Brian writes:
Oh, you provide a lovely example of the great creationist trait of selective quoting..
Good point. You caught me. But the fact still remains that even though the information given is not fully clear yet, there still remains the question of whether our dating methods are accurate. As for ICR, though I've come across some rather one-sided arguments and books from them, such as "Refuting Evolution," I've found that some of their research is helpful in understanding new questions that have been recently raised.
Coragyps writes:
It's a pretty sure bet that the Hell Creek Formation is over 65,000,000 years old. What's lacking, as Schweitzer points out, is a few bits of knowledge about the variety of ways things can get fossilized.
Do have some reliable sources? I know the issue is widely agreed upon but just wonder where the key sources are.
To continue with the dating methods . . .
Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland of http://www.answersingenesis.org state -
"The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere”plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages."
link - http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
Don't be scared away by Jonathan Sarfati, I think this quote at least proposes a significant question of reliability. It seems that while carbon dating does tell us that Hell Creek Formation is around 65,000,000 years old, does it just appear to be so because of the effects from the flood and other causes? Could the new evidence about tissue inside fossils support that claim? Even if you don't agree with the flood, (which geographically, at least to me is hard to disagree with, but that's another subject for a different thread) assuming just for the minute that it did occur, could our techniques be outdated?
Sources:
K.L. McDonald and R.H. Gunst, ”An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965,’ ESSA Technical Report IER 46-IES, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., p. 14, 1965.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coragyps, posted 11-23-2005 3:38 PM Sardonica has not replied
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 11-23-2005 5:54 PM Sardonica has not replied
 Message 29 by Dr Jack, posted 11-17-2006 9:57 AM Sardonica has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024