Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
71 online now:
PaulK, Tanypteryx (2 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,270 Year: 4,382/6,534 Month: 596/900 Week: 120/182 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating Question For Members
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 77 (610146)
03-26-2011 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2011 8:47 PM


TL dating
You might be able to use Thermoluminescence dating for some sands, for example relatively static dunes, sea beds, fossil dunes, but active sea side beaches are not a great prospect.

AbE:

Also, any TL dating would not give an age for the sand itself, but rather only when it was covered so not exposed to the sun.

Edited by jar, : AbE:


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2011 8:47 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 19 of 77 (610181)
03-27-2011 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by dwise1
03-27-2011 11:39 AM


dwise1 writes:

OK, Law of Superposition. It was late and I had had a glass of wine. I've posted much worse before.

My supposition was that that was what you meant.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 03-27-2011 11:39 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 77 (610185)
03-27-2011 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 1:26 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

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

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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 1:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 03-27-2011 3:27 PM jar has seen this message
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 3:37 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 25 of 77 (610191)
03-27-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 3:37 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
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?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 3:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 7:54 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 29 of 77 (610197)
03-27-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
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.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 7:54 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 32 of 77 (610201)
03-27-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 9:13 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

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.

It cannot become a "Flood Thread" since there was no Biblical Flood. That is fact and anyone claiming that the Biblical Flood happened is either wrong, ignorant or lying.

To make sense of geological dating you need to understand that layers are created with the oldest material on the bottom and the youngest material on the top.

Even during a catastrophe that is true.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 9:13 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 44 of 77 (610229)
03-28-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
03-27-2011 11:57 PM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

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.

Well first, the evidence shows with a very, very high degree of confidence that the Biblical Flood never happened. You have been given that evidence, for example in Message 28 and you have always refused to even discuss such evidence.

We do know what the atmosphere was like before the dates for the imaginary Biblical Flood.

We have actual samples of the atmosphere from before the date of the imaginary Biblical Flood. To keep repeating that we don't know what the atmosphere was like before the imaginary Biblical Flood just pitifully wrong.

Buz, when you post nonsense that is factually wrong, where you have been shown time after time that you are factually wrong, there can be only a few explanations.

You could be simply too dumb to be able to understand the explanations.

You could be be crazy, delusional and in need of medical psychiatric care.

Or you could be willfully ignorant, lying for Jesus, perhaps because you fear finding out that your faith is all based on lies.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2011 11:57 PM Buzsaw has seen this message

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33906
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 50 of 77 (610365)
03-29-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
03-29-2011 9:23 AM


Re: Related Dating Questions
Buzsaw writes:

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?

I think you are wrong.

It does not matter if the intrusion was slow or fast. What is being measured is the time elapsed since the intrusion changed states from fluid to solid.

And if it is above something then by definition it will be younger than material that is below unless the whole formation is disturbed and THAT will leave clear evidence of the disturbance.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 03-29-2011 9:23 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022