PRATT Party and Free for All

These are just the first 2 entries at Google for geological dating methods.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Thanks, Bluejay. My intension was not to shorten. Doc is less formal and a bit more pithy.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hey Doc, did you read this a few posts back? If you could be so kind as to run across something on your version of google it'd be greatly appreciated. I'm not finding anything on my creation minded version. Perhaps my creation minded hardware sent some of the other to the trash bin.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Thank you kindly for your helpful response, Coyote. What I'm trying to asertain relates to your claim that dirt dating refutes the flood. It would seem that in order to do that, there would needs be significant continuous areas of sediment layering which could be dated layer by layer from, say 3000 years back to 50,000 years back. I use these figures for two reasons:1) To begin well before the alleged flood.2) To show whether there are any non-continuous gaps from 3000 to 50,000 years ago as per current dating methods. (ABE: Perhaps 3,000 to 10,000 years would be a more feasable time frame since the last alleged Ice Age ended then. ) (Meanwhile Doc Adequate (sometimes inadequate) bandages head wounds, bloodied by bashing because of bloomering blatherer's bloviations.) Edited by Buzsaw, : added sentence as indicated.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Lake Suigetsu. Say it loudly. Then enter "suigetsu" into the search function right here at EvC, and read any of the dozens of excellent posts by RAZD, JonF, Chiroptera, or even me about that 45,000 year set of carbon-14 dates. They correlate with other dates from icecaps, corals, stalagmites......perhaps you've forgotten, Buz.

You ask for a stratigraphic profile covering "Perhaps 3,000 to 10,000 years would be a more feasable time frame since the last alleged Ice Age ended then."Here is one. This is a site with which I am familiar, but there are lots of other examples. Abstract here, and article available for purchase

Environmental change recorded in sediments from the Marmes rockshelter archaeological site, southeastern Washington state, USA, by Gary Huckleberry and Cynthia Fadem

​

Abstract: The Marmes Rockshelter archaeological site in southeastern Washington state contains a > 11 kyr stratigraphic record that was excavated in the 1960s but only recently analyzed in detail. We present the results of physical, chemical, and isotopic analyses of archived Marmes sediments from rockshelter, hillslope, and floodplain locations. Multiple lines of evidence including boulis production, soil chemistry, and δ13C and δ18O signatures in soil organic matter and calcium carbonate suggest that relatively cool, moist conditions 10,600 to 9700 14C yr BP were followed by relatively warm and dry conditions as early as 9000 14C yr BP. Warm and dry conditions extended to the late Holocene, followed by a return to cooler and moister climate. The limited range of δ13C and δ18O values in Marmes paleosols suggests that the magnitude of moisture and temperature shifts was locally buffered in the lower Snake River Canyon but adequate to generate significant changes in sedimentation and soil formation, possibly due to nonlinear geological and pedological processes. These buffered canyon environments were well suited for establishing residential bases associated with foraging and logistical collecting strategies and may have minimized the influence of climate changes in food resource abundance.

One of the interesting features of the Marmes site is that there were large post-glacial floods through that area at the end of the ice age. Those floods are pretty well documented and understood. A good summary article is here.Note the detail in which these floods can be documented based on the evidence they left behind. Lots of evidence!Now consider a global flood of "biblical proportions." What evidence should we expect from such a flood? We should expect LOTS of evidence, most impressive evidence, and we should expect it worldwide! That evidence just isn't there.Another problem: these channeled scablands are 2-3 times older than the biblical flood. Something of the reported scale of Noah's flood, occurring so much more recently, should have 1) obliterated the earlier flood sediments, and 2) left much more obvious and widespread evidence. That evidence just isn't there.Let me know how you feel about this and we can go on from there.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Thanks you Coyote. This will give me some things to think about. There's so much corroborative support to the Biblical record that I'm aware of, such as the evidence at Nuweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba relative to the Exodus as well as so much fulfilled prophecy and other data that I cannot discount the Biblical flood. I don't accept that carbon dating and perhaps other dating methodology would work prior to the flood if indeed it happened due to the implied pre-flood earth and atmosphere. I deduce from that that what has been attributed to ice ages was the flood but admittedly cannot adequatly support my position scientifically. A flood would have left a significant amount of ice at the poles due to the sudden condensation of the alleged canopy globally which is implied. I hope you understand my dilema.However, having said the above, I respect your position and the work you have done. Insomuch as I'm able I will work to get a better understanding of your data and learn more relative to the whys and wherefores of both sides of this flood dabate.

Thank you, Coragyps. I'll do some searching.

As a librarian, please allow me to save you some time. Try Message 1 for the most recent iteration.I have a question. How could you possibly miss what is IMO the greatest and most informative series of threads in the history of EvC? Remember, everything claimed is heavily referenced and peer reviewed, it is not a matter of just taking RAZD's word for every assertion.Now Buz, you didn't miss that series of threads on purpose, did you?Edited by anglagard, : Two last sentences and subtitle.Edited by anglagard, : pluralize claim due to proper grammer

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Thanks for weighing in with the links, Anglagard. You know, my friend, someday you'll be judged as you judge others. I am a very busy sole proprietor of a business. my activity on this site has been sporadic. As a matter of fact, until this thread I've not opened most, if any of those threads. I usually open ones which I'm involved with, not have time to read much. I don't remember opening what you linked or being involved, being a few years ago. I could be forgetful but surely not dishonest as you imply, as I have a healthy fear of Jehovah, god of us all, whether or not we acknowledge him.I'm in the process of reading when I can find time. I'm particularly interested in dirt dating since that was the claim that Coyote made relative to the flood. It would seem that since the last alleged Ice Age ended around 10,000 years ago and there was no major catastrophe since, that much of the plains, plateaus and meadows would have a significant continuous and relatively uniform carbon datable sediment layer record, requiring little effort to research. That's just logical musings of a layman and likely considered too simplistic. I've got a lot of reading to do on this and just begun, so bear with me.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So radiocarbon dating, as well as all other forms of radiometric dating, is unreliable. And it's unreliable because of the incredible, planet-altering effects of a global flood. And this flood must have not only radicaly changed the geography and climate of the entire planet, but must have somehow changed the very nature of matter itself in order to skew things like atomic decay rates so drastically. And it did so in less than a year. And yet somehow this reality-changing event left no discernable traces whatsoever in the physical history of the planet, which instead shows a reliable continuous history, confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, going back for billions of years.Am I understanding this correctly? This planet - this entire universe, it seems - was changed so radically and completely less than 10,000 years ago that there's absolutely no traces of this change actually happening?Just wondering.

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Some creationists claim that the C14 levels in the atmosphere were changed by the flood and related events, making radiocarbon dates earlier than 6,000 or so years ago in need of recalibration. Their recalibration brings those older dates down to the range of about 6,000 years, making them compatible with their religious beliefs.Unfortunately, they have been unable to provide any evidence for 1) drastic changes in atmospheric levels of C14, 2) the need for recalibrations based on a global flood, or 3) the global flood itself.Still other creationists claimed changes in the decay rates, but the RATE project, run by creationists, has pretty much done away with those claims.The more you look at the data the more you realize how thoroughly science has disproved the idea of a purported global flood at ca. 4,350 years ago.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Maybe it wasn't 4350 years ago. It could have been 4360 years ago. Or maybe only 4300! Ha! Why haven't any of those atheist evolutionistic archeologists checked that out, huh?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

Hi Zen. It's not that simplistic as per the Buz literalist Genesis hypothesis. I've explained this before on occasion, but I'll explain briefly again. According to the Biblical record, it is not known how long days 1 through 5 were. They could have been a very long time or relatively short. Not given. The record says the Holy Spirit moved/worked on the waters etc, i.e did whatever work needed to be done on each day. Light was applied by the HS at just the right amount to evaporate the waters below enough to form a canopy atmosphere. Again, not given as to how long.Plants came in day 3; again before sun etc so HS provided varied amounts of heat, light etc to perfect the plant world. Again, no indication of how long days were or how long plants were on earth until the sun etc were formed sometime in day four, so we don't know how long that took because the solar bodies were not finished until the end of day four. The record gives the purpose of the solar bodies which was to initiate the 24 hour day, etc so not until day 5 when fish and birds were created did we have 24 hour days.Now we come to the important stuff relative to your question. Nobody but nobody knows how long plants were on earth. What we would conclude is that there had to be a very different atmosphere on the planet for who knows how long. Nobody would know how much carbon etc; likely very much less than post flood. The same would likely go with other radiometric dating methods.Why do I so adamantly believe the Genesis account? Because of a significant amount of corroborating evidence for the Biblical record at large, regardless of the controversial stuff, some perhaps warranted but most not if one becomes well studied on all of the corroborated scriptures.I have been into the Bible extensively and daily over 60 years since a 10 year old child. Not to boast, but for the record I am well versed on all of the prophecies and how they all corroborate the whole. I have the Lennart Moller, Swedish marine scientist's book and video on the phenominal discover of chariot debris at Nweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba corroborated , I say corroborated by all else that the Bible states which should be found in the region of the crossing, which until this discovery was thought to be down at the southern tip of Sinai. etc. I say this to enforce that there is a significant amount of evidence for the veracity of the Biblical record, especially the fulled prophecies relative to the end times and the emerging evidenc of the yet to be fulfilled ones. This all, not to mention the significant amount of personal experiential phenomena I have witness and experienced relative to the reality of Jehovah, god. This, of course cannot be verified to you. Nor can the pre-flood stuff be verified. I cite it and explain so as to explain why I doggedly hold to those views, in spite of being accused of foolishly rejecting established theory and the science of it.The reason there can be no legitimate science debate of creationism versus evolution is that science has devised what is considered to be a imperical way to explain naturally what the Bible states was done relatively suddenly.We know, for example that if (I say if) the sun were created by a supernatural means it would have needs have been created beyond the proto-star period of star building so as to do the function it was created to do. What would require billions o y to be a functional star would take God whatever time deemed by him.In creation, God did work, as per 2LoT, exchanging energy from him to his creation. Thus he rested the 7th day. The same with Jesus when he healed the woman with the issue of blood. He said virtue/energy had left him and the woman confessed.Perhaps this may serve to answer your question and perhaps hopefully help you all who think the ole man's lost it to understand that there's method in my madness. IMPORTANT ABE: Zen, the Buz hypothesis in no way deems the universe young or changed relatively to Genesis 1. God being eternal, the universe had to be eternal since Jehovah and all of his entourage of the hosts of angels, etc reside somewhere in the cosmos, likely extending all over it. Genesis 1 is primarilily about the earth, Solar System and perhaps our Milky Way galexy. Edited by Buzsaw, : Pinked addition.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So we finally get an explanation of how this "different atmosphere" is supposed to affect radiometric dates. However, this time, it is not connected to the Flood but the 3rd day of creation in Genesis 1.

quote:

---

Now we come to the important stuff relative to your question. Nobody but nobody knows how long plants were on earth. What we would conclude is that there had to be a very different atmosphere on the planet for who knows how long. Nobody would know how much carbon etc; likely very much less than post flood. The same would likely go with other radiometric dating methods.

---

And it's complete rubbish. Carbon dating is NOT based on the "amount of carbon". It's based on the proportion of different carbon isotopes. Moreover, carbon dating has been calibrated with non-radiometric dates with no sign of any major error - as has been discussed on this site before.Other radiometric dating methods do NOT rely on atmospheric material at all, so how this is supposed to affect them, I have no idea.And, of course since it relies on a world with only plants, this puts the date of the "change" before the start of the Cambrian - far out of range of carbon dating. Which is one more reason why it cannot affect carbon dates.

quote:

---

have been into the Bible extensively and daily over 60 years since a 10 year old child. Not to boast, but for the record I am well versed on all of the prophecies and how they all corroborate the whole. I have the Lennart Moller, Swedish marine scientist's book and video on the phenominal discover of chariot debris at Nweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba corroborated , I say corroborated by all else that the Bible states which should be found in the region of the crossing, which until this discovery was thought to be down at the southern tip of Sinai. etc. I

---

I'm amazed that you would consider this uncontroversial given the lack of real evidence and the major errors in Moller's work discussed on this site - not to mention the association with Ron Wyatt.

quote:

---

I say this to enforce that there is a significant amount of evidence for the veracity of the Biblical record, especially the fulled prophecies relative to the end times and the emerging evidenc of the yet to be fulfilled ones. This all, not to mention the significant amount of personal experiential phenomena I have witness and experienced relative to the reality of Jehovah, god. This, of course cannot be verified to you. Nor can the pre-flood stuff be verified. I cite it and explain so as to explain why I doggedly hold to those views, in spite of being accused of foolishly rejecting established theory and the science of it.

---

Of course these claims, too, have been debunked here - and often shown to be based on twisting and misrepresenting the Bible. Which is an odd way of "believing " it.

quote:

---

The reason there can be no legitimate science debate of creationism versus evolution is that science has devised what is considered to be a imperical way to explain naturally what the Bible states was done relatively suddenly.

​

We know, for example that if (I say if) the sun were created by a supernatural means it would have needs have been created beyond the proto-star period of star building so as to do the function it was created to do. What would require billions o y to be a functional star would take God whatever time deemed by him.

---

Of course, this argument, too is refuted by the evidence of age. It does not explain the evidence of past events. For instance the iridium layer from the major meteorite at the end of the Cretaceous. And, of course, radiometric dates.