Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.1)Define "kind".In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

How do we tell one "kind" from another?Assuming that you are talking about the animal kingdom, the answer "to me" would be a very simple one. A "kind" of animal would not jump the species boundry. For instance; There are thousands of different types of dogs, but none of them jump the species boundry (even though they have had an outside intelligent force guiding their "psuedo evolution" for thousands of years) You see a dog is still a dog no matter how you slice it. So there you have it.

If you are committed to "kind" as species, thats fine. You should realise that by conservative estimate well over a million different species of animals. Thats a pretty tight fit on the ark !
For that reason , the Answers in Genesis folk have defined "kind" to mean genus-one taxanomic level up- in order to get a figure of 8000 pairs of animals on the ark. Even then ,they leave off all molluscs, and anthropods.According to the Bible, they presumably all perished.And all living things that moved on the earth died, including the birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 7:22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 7:23 So the LORD destroyed every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, including people, animals, creatures that creep along the ground and birds of the sky. They were wiped off the earth. (Genesis 7:21-23).I will leave it up to creationists to explain how these creatures are still with us.
Meanwhile, Duane Gish, Creationist Number One, has defined " basic kind " in way that includees whole classes, such as molluscs and "worms"!
I predict that there will no consistient creationist definition of "kind' in this forum.

I don't like to get bogged down in the minutia of "compartmentalized" debates. The guy asked for a definition and I gave him one. You gave another.Some academe somewhere will probably disagree with us both......and so on. I try and look at this whole debate from a logical approach. I adhere firmly to the KISS theory. I am not going to try and dazzle anyone with a theory or quote that I read out of book somewhere. I will from time to time use research and findings to illustrate a point. I still can't get (logically) past the BIG hurdles like The big dud, punctuated equilibrium, the cambrian explosion.....just to name a few. When the big ones don't have a satisfactory answer it seems like we are putting the chicken before the egg.===================
Relax 8)

​

[This message has been edited by Sparticus, 01-27-2002]

schrafinator, I cannot believe your bias and ignorance towards creation. Especially after all you taught me. I could quite easily come up with a massive list on things that evolutionist never answer, what should I do? Abandon the ToE because they won't answer my questions? Or abandon Creation because they won't answer my questions? Try perhaps do your own research instead of expecting to just be spoonfed the answers.1. Your argument is a straw men. Creationist don't claim to know what a kind is. That's why they have scientist working it out. They do however have a good idea on some kinds, such as the cow kind and the dog kind. It's the same as evolutionist won't tell me how life just amazingly spontaneously arrised. If I ask that question I get accused. No fair!2. I have a good idea on how they conclude there dates, but not enough of an understanding to even have a crack at falsifying them. I've read of many problems given by creationist as to the current dating methods. So what am I to believe? Neither, both, or just pick out the bits that support pre-conceived ideas and be biased like everyone else?3. Because you don't understand the flood model. Saying never is not science. I'm uncertain about wood not being found there, but for the "flowering plants", that is easily answered. Go get some leaves/flowers and chuck them in some water. They float!...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open... Genesis 7:11Take note on that passage. I'm assuming it means volcanoes. If so, then that means all the volcanoes! This was no ordinary flood. There would of been that many natural disasters going on (mud slides, earthquakes, etc.) that what the evidence reveals could be pretty much anything. It wasn't just the water sorting out our geologic column!Please, if you wish to argue the creation views, get some real arguments.

"I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:"
--Sorry Im trying to steer clear of getting involved in as many topics as I can, but since you want an answer so bad, here:"I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them."
--Actually I explained some of them to you allready, and some numerous times, it seems you didn't see my explination as relevant, though without reason, or attempted to ignore."1)Define "kind".In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?"
--Baraminology I believe it is called is working on as accurate as we can get to 'exactly' what a kind would have been on the day of creation. We do have a very good Idea however what a kind is, as it is obvious in some, and not so obvious in others, for instance the cat kind, we know that lions and tigers can interbreed, and we know that wolves and domestic dogs can interbreed along with cyotes and dingo's, so they would be considered all kinds. We know that all those mosquito's are the same kind as there are about 5000 in that group, penguins are all the same kind, many birds can be related, the different verieties of parrots for instance, or all the bears, polar bears, brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears, panda bears etc, we know are one kind."2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)"
--I would argue that the actual 'dates' are consistant, though the published dates, no doubt would be consistant, for one, who knows how many times they have to date the thing to get the date they want, and besides this is a quote I have from a debate with a university professor and a creationist from the AiG organisation, with no comment from the professor:

quote:

---

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

Also from a peice of one of my earlier rebutal articles with many quotes:Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised, Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... (Waterhouse).In general, dates in the `correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. (Mauger)... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods. (Brown and Miller)A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)."3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?"
--Actually it is evident by pollen grains found in pre-cambrian strata that they were present before they even existed..

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
...

​

"2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)"

​

--I would argue that the actual 'dates' are consistant, though the published dates, no doubt would be consistant, for one, who knows how many times they have to date the thing to get the date they want, and besides this is a quote I have from a debate with a university professor and a creationist from the AiG organisation, with no comment from the professor:

​

Also from a peice of one of my earlier rebutal articles with many quotes:

​

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

This is pretty funny stuff, TC. Where did you get it? (Never mind just a rhetorical question, I think we all know) This is nonsense. No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated.

quote:

---

... (section snipped)

---

THis section is the best:

quote:

---

A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

---

And?

quote:

---

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

---

And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)

quote:

---

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

---

Some, sure. What is the problem with this?

quote:

---

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

---

Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless.

quote:

---

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded.

quote:

---

"3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?"
--Actually it is evident by pollen grains found in pre-cambrian strata that they were present before they even existed..

---

These have been debunked elsewhere. You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 01-28-2002]

Better add how they differentiate between naturaly occuring and designed systems to the list..... (see the latter pages of the stonehenge thread)....

Oh and how the hubble red shift fits in with creation ex nihilo X,000 (X thousand (where X is of the close order of 10)) years ago...(big bang or big dud thread)

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-28-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b]I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them.Perhaps the Creationists in this forum will provide. I will list a few of them to get us started.1)Define "kind".In other words, how do [/QUOTE][/b]
I am going to try this with only the assistance of memory so I reserve the right to back out if it is not as inclusive as is plausibly needed. A kind is something to which an aggreement of the Croizat node can be acessed though there may be disagreements about the tracks composing it and certainly some opionin about how to understand the baseline from which it may be fixed for a period of research. This definition is taxa independent and to it would need some specialist to modify the geometry of under the Assumption of a common mechanism that would also be subject to change. Furthermore it is easier to say what this kind I have defined is not. IT is not a Kripke Natural Kind. There is only one Earth but there are many organisms. [QUOTE][b]we tell one "kind" from another? [/QUOTE][/b]
To do this as a pro po I would need software that will be avialable out biodiversity informatics in the next 5-10yrs if the Europeans can stop meddling about middle ware. [QUOTE][b]2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong,[/QUOTE][/b]I am certainly less qualified than others to speak to this but I do think that Galelio comparions of differences and quotients do show no matter the asymptotic approach to be so methodocially wrong or in error as you quote I would the RATE work but am not expert on that.

quote:

---

then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)

​

3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?

---

SORRY i am not going to answer this question as it would involve a comeptancy in PRice knoweldge that is not a vertebrate DS Jordan would recognize and I have cognized as you may gather from the weeks I am cobbling to gether a much broader problem than the text-book illustrating influnce and teaching use of said column haveing to do with nano-technology that is a particular outcome of US research and thus is my business rather to inform abroad about this. More later. I know my def is definitely not understandable from the words without explanation but I have not time to detail more and more of this so skip this if need arises for the con"sistency" constiutatively seems to be a consistent mistake of law and theory but that is only a guess for some underlying hypotheitcal nature that has not as far as I am concerned got out of the CURCH and into the warmer hands of NORth America as I understood a New Orleans reporter write about the Pope in 1996. Both the reporter and my self could be wrong and need some more about confessions etc.

"This is pretty funny stuff, TC. Where did you get it? (Never mind just a rhetorical question, I think we all know) This is nonsense. "
--I found it funny too, laughed my head off . I would have expected a response such as 'this is nonsense' of course I would also postulate no reason for the assertion, as is infered every time."No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated."
--But wait a second? I thought you said all the dates given are 'so consistant with each other', thus it should not make a difference if you use any method to date anything, because 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' (your own words and your argument)."... (section snipped)"
--In other words 'No comment'."THis section is the best:"
--Its not too bad "And?"
--They are supposed to be the same age I believe."And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)"
--Ofcourse...theres no detectable carbon left, which is what we should find in any dino bone or any of the such in early strata, but wait 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' aren't they?"Some, sure. What is the problem with this?"
--It means the dates are drastically non-consistant, if another radiometric dating method gave a date of millions, carbon 14 levels should be undetectable."Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless."
--This means...the oceanic sediments and life they dated...isn't millions of years old according to C14 dating."C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded."
--So your agreeing that radiometric dating methods do not produce dates at all consistant with one another?"These have been debunked elsewhere."
--No you didn't this is what you have been saying all throughout my posts when I make reference, you discredit it automatically because of your pre-consieved idea, I have not seen a successful rebutal to them as of yet."You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...
"--Actualy much of your multi-million year old coal is composed of bark, and I beleive flowering plant vegetation. And there is multiple sources for these pollen grains, and I beleive some aren't even creationists.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated."
--But wait a second? I thought you said all the dates given are 'so consistant with each other', thus it should not make a difference if you use any method to date anything, because 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' (your own words and your argument).

---

Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method. At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results.

quote:

---

"... (section snipped)"
--In other words 'No comment'.

---

Actually, "I don't have time right now," but want to let people know that there is more in the original.

quote:

---

"And?"
--They are supposed to be the same age I believe.

---

No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates. If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it.

quote:

---

"And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)"

​

--Ofcourse...theres no detectable carbon left, which is what we should find in any dino bone or any of the such in early strata, but wait 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' aren't they?

---

Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods. There are more appropriate methods. Do you understand what is going on here? Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14. At some point we cannot measure the amount of C14 remaining in the material. So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old.

quote:

---

"Some, sure. What is the problem with this?"

​

--It means the dates are drastically non-consistant, if another radiometric dating method gave a date of millions, carbon 14 levels should be undetectable.

---

How do you know that oil and gas cannot be generated in less than 50ky? Where do you get your information on this? (Never mind, I think I know). How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?

quote:

---

"Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless."

​

--This means...the oceanic sediments and life they dated...isn't millions of years old according to C14 dating.

---

What do you mean by primitive? I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution.

quote:

---

"C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded."

​

--So your agreeing that radiometric dating methods do not produce dates at all consistant with one another?

---

Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young. I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession. Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years. It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby.

quote:

---

"These have been debunked elsewhere."
--No you didn't this is what you have been saying all throughout my posts when I make reference, you discredit it automatically because of your pre-consieved idea, I have not seen a successful rebutal to them as of yet.

---

There have been rebuttals but they have been counter-rebutted with a dismayed denial. The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party.

quote:

---

"You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...

​

--Actualy much of your multi-million year old coal is composed of bark, and I beleive flowering plant vegetation.

---

That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?

quote:

---

And there is multiple sources for these pollen grains, and I beleive some aren't even creationists.

---

But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian...I really apologize for taking advantage of you on these issues. My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them. You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this. The application of radiocarbon methods to late Paleozoic coal is an example. Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is.

"Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method."
--So you agree that all the dating methods are not consistant?"At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results."
--Is this about expenses or accuracy? If your argument revolves around consistant accurate dates claimed by the different radiometric dating methods, that means that if you date something with say the Potassium/Argon or Uranium232 (I'm not sure what the number was) and get ranges in the hundreds of millions or so, then that should easilly and is 'required' that Carbon14 should be near non-existant in your sample, is this not correct?"Actually, "I don't have time right now," but want to let people know that there is more in the original."
--I wish I could use this consistantly with my numerous posts that are directed towards me in areas! It sure would make revolving around the easier facts much easier, though I strive to present as thourough of an examination of all the relevant data (what isn't relevent is obvious whether you are a creationist or evoluitonist). But this is fine, its nice to keep things short (depending on the topic)."No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates."
--It is necessary to give a relatively even date, instead of all over the chart, meaning if you find a fossil, and then find a fossil lying next to it, and they are 30,000 year diffence, that means that you have to preserve one of them for those 30,000 years without such decay, and a landslide is not acceptable for all these cases, as strata layering is consistant throughout both samples."If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it."
--What would you be making reference to, conclusion to what observation?"Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods."
--I can see why, they despise those young dates. If they didn't realise what kind of bone it was, and didn't know where its place of origin or strata it was found in (as you give them when you do want something dated) they would first assume that it would have been burried in the Quaternary Period. "There are more appropriate methods"
--You mean more 'accurate' methods? I thought they were all appropriate, as they would be if they all gave consistant dates wouldn't they."Do you understand what is going on here?"
--Its a conspiracy! (J/k) Just a severe missunderstanding."Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14."
--This is exactly why when you date anything that is supposedly older than 50-70k years dated by another method or the fossil record/geologic column,(depending on who your talking to) then you should have an infinite date, ie, undetectable carbon or unmeasurable quantities of radioisotops of the nuclei in your sample."At some point we cannot measure the amount of C14 remaining in the material."
--Which is where it should be for something older than it is able to 'date'."So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old."
--Yes there should be abundant samples of these quantities of radioisotopes of carbon 14, but as you saw only 3 of the 15,000 gave this 'date'."How do you know that oil and gas cannot be generated in less than 50ky?"
--I am very glad that you adhear to the problem of coal and gas being generated in these dates, as they should be many millions of years older, thus the strata above the coal/oil deposit, is younger..."Where do you get your information on this? (Never mind, I think I know)."
--This quote is one that, as I said when I gave it, was a quote I recorded from a debate with a Creationist I believe in the AiG organization and a university professor, Dr. Frankel.

quote:

---

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

"How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?"
--For one, where is it going to migrate, espicially coal, as it is a solid material. So your argument is that, since these dates seem to be inaccurate, therefor they had to have been contaminated by partitioning of the rocks, interesting you bring this up as it is one of the assumptions involved in the various 'dating' methods."What do you mean by primitive?"
--Primitive as in early in the geologic column primitive."I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution."
--Key words 'deep ocean deposits', they werent just picked up off the ocean floor, technically I am not refuting evolution, I am refuting the mechenism that is given to support Evolution geologically speaking."Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young."
--Which means that the old rocks should get the old dates, and the young rocks should get the young dates."I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession."
--You seem to be missing the point, if your going to date Carboniferous deposits and you get even the slightest ioda of measurable Carbon 14, you have a massive problem. If your statement is true, then it again should be taking a look at a little bit of bias found in anyone that would 'laugh you out of the profession' for getting a date as such."Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years."
--Then why can we get even measurable samples if they are eons older than 50,000 years?"It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby."
--Again, if your getting measurable quantities of RadioCarbon 14 in your sample, then obviously using logic, it is younger than 50,000 years. Using your analogy this is like getting yourself a date of 100 days for your Kentucky Derby, obviously histerically 'out of the ball park'."There have been rebuttals but they have been counter-rebutted with a dismayed denial."
--Makes no matter, I have still yet to see the rebutal itself, if it is 'counter rebutted' with an assetion that 'well its wrong' without reason, it doesnt' matter whether it is a creationist or evolutionist, it should be ignored unless an explination is presented."The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party."
--If I lived near the Grand canyon I would like to do this myself so that I could obtain it as an absolute in my mind that this is true, along with every other aspect of assertion as I obtain speculation on any source that claims anything drastically relevent. But the fact is that these have already been found, it would not be the smartest thing to go do the test all over again if a conclusion has already been met."That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?"
--Then why do they place the date of flowering plant Evolution at the Cretateous period when Coal formations are found in the Carboniferous? 230,000,000 years before they supposedly evolved."But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian..."
--Being found in the same coal together, this would be expected from a Global Flood as thse formations were burried all at once, quicker than normal. Being burried in sedimental layers would be different however, as then factors of burrial would then be taken into consideration, from the time gymnosperms appear in sediments, to the time angiosperms appeard, could have consisted of days or less than weeks of time for burrial. By the way, I cannot find anything on a Hakatai Shale, where can I get information on this shale deposit."I really apologize for taking advantage of you on these issues."
--Really, you shouldn't talk this early in the discussion. "My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them."
--So you agree that Dating methods are not consistant then, so far it seems to be the only conclusion that uses the slightest of logic."You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this."
--I would hold back the critisism untill conclusions are made, it would be unwize to do so."The application of radiocarbon methods to late Paleozoic coal is an example."
--Then you would agree, it is drastically flawed."Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is."
--You have it backwords, inaccurate conclusion on your part, as I have explained exactly why 'some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is'.--Im glad we finally got that 'Kind' argument down untill further notice from Bariminological studies takes way.------------------

"Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method."
TC--So you agree that all the dating methods are not consistant?Moose reply: No, he's saying that different dating methods are suitible for different situations. Carbon dating is suitable for organic remains 50k years or less old."At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results."
TC--Is this about expenses or accuracy? If your argument revolves around consistant accurate dates claimed by the different radiometric dating methods, that means that if you date something with say the Potassium/Argon or Uranium232 (I'm not sure what the number was) and get ranges in the hundreds of millions or so, then that should easilly and is 'required' that Carbon14 should be near non-existant in your sample, is this not correct?Moose reply: Look - C14 dating is used for carbon bearing samples. The other dating methods are used for rock dating. TC, you're doing an apples and oranges comparison."No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates."
TC--It is necessary to give a relatively even date, instead of all over the chart, meaning if you find a fossil, and then find a fossil lying next to it, and they are 30,000 year diffence, that means that you have to preserve one of them for those 30,000 years without such decay, and a landslide is not acceptable for all these cases, as strata layering is consistant throughout both samples.Moose reply: If indeed in place, the fossils are of the same age. Such a situation would call for a dating method other than C14, as the fossils contain no Carbon. If you date volcanic ash beds below and above the fossils, it will give you a maximum and minimum age bracket for the fossils. (in saying this, I must admit I know nothing about the dating of the Carbon in Calcium Carbonate - maybe it can be done)."Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods."
TC--I can see why, they despise those young dates. If they didn't realise what kind of bone it was, and didn't know where its place of origin or strata it was found in (as you give them when you do want something dated) they would first assume that it would have been burried in the Quaternary Period.Moose reply: Dinosaur bones don't contain carbon. And even if they did, the C14 would have been long decayed away.Enough here - Bring your questions to the "Dating Methods Controversy Discussion" topic.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

"And i dont believe that God would ever destroy the world to make a point and on that particular point,my position will remain as such unless God in person tells me otherwise."
--My point is that if there is measurable carbon still contained, it cannot be the assumed age, there is no way around this, and this is exactly his argument, that dating methods are consistant, when I have shown that they simply are not."Moose reply: Look - C14 dating is used for carbon bearing samples. The other dating methods are used for rock dating. TC, you're doing an apples and oranges comparison."
--This is not Apples and Oranges, his argument is that dating methods are consistant, the fact is they are not, and I have yet to receive an adiquate explination for this, and yes I am all ears, I am not ignorant of the truth and I am awaiting."Moose reply: If indeed in place, the fossils are of the same age."
--Then why are the dates so 'out of the ball park'?"Such a situation would call for a dating method other than C14, as the fossils contain no Carbon."
--This is the point, there is Still very measurable quantities of Carbon 14 radioisotopes in these samples. So is Carbon 14 dating inaccurate?"If you date volcanic ash beds below and above the fossils, it will give you a maximum and minimum age bracket for the fossils. (in saying this, I must admit I know nothing about the dating of the Carbon in Calcium Carbonate - maybe it can be done)."
--Fossils found in the same layering, especially with dating of Carbon 14, are these simply eroneous dates acceptable to be accurate. Because It dates to 50-70k years depending on who your talking to, you can't have even one or two half-life differnces here."Dinosaur bones don't contain carbon. And even if they did, the C14 would have been long decayed away."
--Exactly my point, they 'do' contain carbon 14 radioisotopes, and these measurable amounts are sometimes all over the place."Enough here - Bring your questions to the "Dating Methods Controversy Discussion" topic."
--Really, I don't have the questions, I am giving the answers. Also I don't know if that would be the best Idea currently, as we seem to be in the middle of a discussion on the GRF currently.------------------