Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
59 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,122 Year: 4,234/6,534 Month: 448/900 Week: 154/150 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 77 (610141)
03-26-2011 6:54 PM


In Message 39 of the Great Debate between Moose and me, I posed the following question:

quote:
If any given beach sand were dated via the same method old rock is dated, what would the dectection show as the date of the beach sand which was dated?

Would the sand rock date old or very young? Would each grain of sand have a different date or would the aggregate of sand in a given beach area show an aggregate date?

("Detection" changed in quote for clarity. )


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 8:47 PM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 03-26-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 12 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2011 5:05 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 77 (610152)
03-26-2011 10:38 PM


Related Dating Questions
Thanks for the replies, folks. What led up to my question was Moose's statement that fossils were dated from the time of deposit of the organism.

From searching, I learned that most fossils consisted of sedimentary rock and were void of original organic matter. This raised the question in my mind as to why the aggregate age of the rock or sand grains in the sediment would not be calculated as the age of the fossil rather than the time the organism was deposited.

If Moose is correct, in that fossils are dated from the time of deposit, why wouldn't that apply to sea shore sand and for that matter, even a house built of stone, some of which had aged fossils in it.

I am considering this as a possible problem in dating methodology.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 03-26-2011 10:44 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2011 11:37 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 12:23 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 77 (610156)
03-26-2011 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by subbie
03-26-2011 10:44 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
subbie writes:

And I'm quite certain that you, someone with zero education in geology, sitting at your computer, will think up all kinds of problems that people with PhDs will never be able to solve.

Hubris much?

Subbie, unless you have something constructive to contribute to this topic I'd appreciate it if you'd find something else to do.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by subbie, posted 03-26-2011 10:44 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by subbie, posted 03-26-2011 11:41 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 77 (610173)
03-27-2011 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2011 12:23 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate writes:

Fossils aren't dated by looking at the sedimentary rock in which they're buried, though of course such a date would provide a maximum possible age for the fossil.

But the sedimentary rock consist of aged grains of sediment much older than the organism which formed the sediment into a fossil. It's all particles of rock compacted into sediment instead of loose, for example, in an ant hill or a beach.

I would assume that since the organic organism is no longer there that what is being calibrated would be the old particles of the sedimentary rock.

Since beach sand is mostly quartz, perhaps a better example would be an ant hill. When I was young I was a geophysical rod man on the Sweetwater wilderness of Wyoming. The large ant hills out there consisted of all sorts of rock, including enough beautiful little red garnets that I robbed the ants of their garnets and saved a bottle of them.

Suppose that during a catastrophe thousands of years ago, an ant hill was buried and became sediment with a leaf in it becoming fossilized. Over the millennia the leaf ceased to be and the sediment formed the fossil. Why wouldn't the dating method calibrate the rock particles making up the sediment of the fossil rather than the time the rock became sedimented?

In short, if dating methodology would date the ant hill by the rock in it, why wouldn't the fossil sediment be dated by the same rock making up the sediment?

We know the ant hill rock was deposited by the ants at the time they existed as ant hills. But dating methodology would not tell us when ant hills are formed, any more than it would tell us when a rock house was built. Why should it be different with the sedimented rock?

Since beach sand is mostly quartz, perhaps a better example would be an ant hill. When I was young I was a geophysical rod man on the Sweet water region of Wyoming. The large ant hills out there consisted of all sorts of rock, including enough beautiful little red garnets that I robbed the ants of their garnets and saved a bottle of them.

Supposing that during a catastrophe thousands of years ago, an ant hill was buried and became sediment with a leaf in it becoming fossilized. Over the millennia the leaf ceased to be and the sediment formed the fossil. Why wouldn't the dating method date the rock particles making up the sediment of the fossil rather than the time the rock became sedimented?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 12:23 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 03-27-2011 11:32 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2011 11:44 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 9:41 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 77 (610184)
03-27-2011 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coragyps
03-27-2011 11:44 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Coragyps writes:

Over the millennia the leaf ceased to be and the sediment formed the fossil.

No, it didn't. Ground water containing dissolved minerals might have formed the fossil, if it was a replacement sort of fossilization event. Or surrounding sediments might have made a mold that preserved the shape of the leaf. But the anthill grains themselves didn't "form the fossil."

And in answer to your topic title: no, Buz, I won't go out with you. I'm a happily married man.

I'll rephrase my statement for clarification. After the leaf formed the sediment leaf mold, over the millennia the leaf mold fossilized so as to form the fossil,

I would assume that minerals or surrounding sediments would have dated older than the organism forming the fossil.

The question remains, why would the old minerals, sediment rock or whatever makes up the sediment date the time of the deposit of the leaf forming the fossil any more than the time of a present ant hill calculation by modern calculation for dating old rocks date the time the ant hill was made/deposited by the ants?

ABE: As to your title comment, the title date had nothing to do with either kind of dates one might eat.

Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2011 11:44 AM Coragyps has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 1:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 77 (610190)
03-27-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
03-27-2011 1:54 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
jar writes:

First, in general, unless a formation has been disturbed, material above something is younger than material below something.

That would, of course, be true assuming a relative uniformitarion hypothesis, but not necessarily from a catastrophic hypothesis.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 1:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 3:42 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-27-2011 3:43 PM Buzsaw has seen this message

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 77 (610196)
03-27-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
03-27-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
jar writes:

Buzsaw writes:

jar writes:

First, in general, unless a formation has been disturbed, material above something is younger than material below something.

That would, of course, be true assuming a relative uniformitarion hypothesis, but not necessarily from a catastrophic hypothesis.

Did you read what I wrote?

We'll go slowly until you understand the basics.

Not quite.

You need to understand some basics.

First, in general, unless a formation has been disturbed, material above something is younger than material below something.

Is that clear?

I understand this fully, Jar, but you seem to be ignoring what I wrote. Catastrophes disturb formations. No? Formations which are relatively suddenly created by catastrophes are disturbed formations. No?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 3:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 8:00 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 03-27-2011 8:35 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 77 (610200)
03-27-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
03-27-2011 8:00 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
jar writes:

A catastrophe can disturb formations, and guess what, it also leaves evidence of the disturbance.

It can for example, overturn a formation, or tilt a formation, but those things are also taken into consideration.

BUT in the end, younger things are above older things.

Even when a catastrophe creates such a formation, it is the younger material on top of older material.

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise. To delve into that would be to delve in another flood debate and I don't want to go there in any depth in this thread, nor do I think admins would look favorably on that.

I want to get back to the questions in my mind about radiometric dating methods which scientists use to date fossils. I'm not satisfied that anyone has adequately answered those questions.

For example I asked why the dating methodology doesn't calculate the date of the sediment particles formed by the leaf into a fossil formation just like it would calculate an old date for the rock pieces in the ant hill on the earth's surface.

One answer was that the glue including mineral and whatever factored in, but that doesn't make sense to me, in that the aged glue itself would not necessarily record when the organism was deposited. It would seem that the radiometric dating of old rocks would calculate the aggregate age of the elements in the sediment rock, since no organic organism matter would be present in the fossil rock.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 8:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-27-2011 9:20 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2011 9:32 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2011 9:35 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 03-28-2011 8:04 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 77 (610208)
03-27-2011 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by lyx2no
03-27-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
lyx2no writes:

A lot of that depends on how one interprets the data and from what premise.

Ignoring data and making stuff up should not be counted as as interpretation.

And the premise that everyone will be to stupid to realize that that is what you are doing isn't working for you either.

Hi Lyx2no.

If the flood happened, the dating data recorded would be off due to unknown pre-flood consistency of the atmosphere elements and that in organisms. That, along with this matter of dating sediment rock making up fossils leads me to think dating methodology has a problem.

Dating methodology has a lot to do with interpreting observed data in the strata, and frankly, as well as whether the flood event happened. There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood. This, along with the problems I see with dating methodology and other debatable flood related arguments keep me in the floodist camp.

I'm not being stubborn as most think. I'm just being honest with myself. I can't deny what I think is logical and what makes sense about observations just to be scientifically correct in the eyes of conventional science types.

Common sense says loudly to me that if the same radiometric dating is used on the ant hill and the fossil, and the radioactive dating allegedly calibrates when the thing being dated was deposited/formed, both the modern ant hill and the fossil are going to show old dates on the meter.

Thus if a fossil was formed by the flood, 4500 years ago, the radioactive dating is going to date the older rock sediment formed by the organism and not the organism which formed what is being dated.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by lyx2no, posted 03-27-2011 9:32 PM lyx2no has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 03-28-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 03-28-2011 12:21 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 03-28-2011 12:33 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 03-28-2011 7:50 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 03-28-2011 9:00 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 44 by jar, posted 03-28-2011 11:10 AM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 03-29-2011 10:35 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 77 (610209)
03-28-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2011 9:41 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate writes:


I would assume that since the organic organism is no longer there that what is being calibrated would be the old particles of the sedimentary rock.

And you assume wrong, as you would know if you had read the message to which you're replying. What is being measured is the ages of igneous rocks.

Dr Adequate writes:

In short, if dating methodology would date the ant hill by the rock in it ...

It wouldn't.

Dr Adequate, I thought most fossils are formed in sedimentary rock. Would you mind elaborating about that as well as "It wouldnt?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 9:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-28-2011 12:14 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 77 (610344)
03-29-2011 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
03-27-2011 9:41 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate writes:

But the sedimentary rock consist of aged grains of sediment much older than the organism which formed the sediment into a fossil. It's all particles of rock compacted into sediment instead of loose, for example, in an ant hill or a beach.

I would assume that since the organic organism is no longer there that what is being calibrated would be the old particles of the sedimentary rock.

And you assume wrong, as you would know if you had read the message to which you're replying. What is being measured is the ages of igneous rocks.

In short, if dating methodology would date the ant hill by the rock in it ...

It wouldn't.

OK, Dr Adequate, I've been thinking this through and doing some reading. So it appears that as per my OP question, what is being dated in order to determine the time the organism was deposited is the intrusive igneous rock which is above the fossil.

This seems to imply that the igneous rock likely originated from the earth's mantel and rose by plate tectonics so as to be above the fossil.

So it appears that what would ultimately determine the age of the fossil is whether the plate tectonic activity was relatively sudden via catastrophe or over the millions of years, inch by inch.

What think you?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-27-2011 9:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 03-29-2011 10:15 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 03-29-2011 10:53 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 50 by jar, posted 03-29-2011 11:06 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 03-29-2011 11:29 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 03-29-2011 11:54 AM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2011 1:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 77 (610396)
03-29-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Dr Adequate
03-29-2011 1:06 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Dr Adequate writes:

OK, Dr Adequate, I've been thinking this through and doing some reading. So it appears that as per my OP question, what is being dated in order to determine the time the organism was deposited is the intrusive igneous rock which is above the fossil.

This seems to imply that the igneous rock likely originated from the earth's mantel and rose by plate tectonics so as to be above the fossil.

So it appears that what would ultimately determine the age of the fossil is whether the plate tectonic activity was relatively sudden via catastrophe or over the millions of years, inch by inch.

What think you?

Well my first thought is to wonder what you can have been reading to end up with your brain that full of nonsense.

How the heck did plate tectonics get involved in this?

From what I read, the intrusive igneous originated from the hot mantel of the planet's core. I would assume that plate tectonics would be one cause of the rise of the intrusive igneous from the mantel to above the fossil. How else does it end up above the fossil sediment being studied?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2011 1:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-29-2011 3:44 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 03-29-2011 3:53 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-29-2011 4:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 66 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2011 8:55 PM Buzsaw has seen this message

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 77 (610407)
03-29-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
03-29-2011 3:53 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
ringo writes:

Buszsaw writes:

I would assume that plate tectonics would be one cause of the rise of the intrusive igneous from the mantel to above the fossil.


Plate tectonics are caused by the same forces that cause lava to extrude and magma to intrude.

Which raises more questions. What forces cause the lava to rise to the extent that it raises the plates?

How far above the planet's mantel does the magma rise before it becomes cooled enough to harden into intrusive igneous rock?

If it is the cooled magma rock that is tested by the radiometric dating, does it date differently than the rising magma and if so, why?


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 03-29-2011 3:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 03-29-2011 5:36 PM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 03-29-2011 7:08 PM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 03-29-2011 9:00 PM Buzsaw has seen this message
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-30-2011 12:14 AM Buzsaw has seen this message

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 77 (610423)
03-29-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tanypteryx
03-29-2011 4:58 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Tanypteryx writes:

Hi Buz,

Do you understand what I am saying?

Yes. I thank you and so many who've been good spirited and informative in this thread. It's all giving me a lot to mull over and try to make sense of.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-29-2011 4:58 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 03-29-2011 8:37 PM Buzsaw has seen this message

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 77 (610449)
03-29-2011 11:14 PM


Re: More Dating Info
Thanks, Taq and Dwise. More food for thought.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022