Since you haven't responded to my post (which means I don't yet consider myself part of the discussion) and you're already going off the rails, I'm going to immediately assume a moderator role.
There's just too much corroborating evidence verifying the Biblical record for me to discount the Biblical flood.
If your conclusions are based upon the Bible, then you're doing religion. If they're based upon evidence gained using scientific methods, then you're doing science. This is a science thread, so please restrict your discussion to those of your conclusions having scientific support and begin describing for us the evidence that leads to these conclusions. Specifically:
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.
If this is somehow related to your question about dating, then in order to do your fair share for your side of the discussion you must describe the evidence supporting the view that the composition of both atmosphere and organisms was different prior to 4500 years ago.
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.
You mention observations. If you're talking about observations of the real world that support your position then please describe them.
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
You've been informed many times in this thread that it isn't the sedimentary layer containing the fossil that is dated, that it is igneous rock layers that bracket the sedimentary layer that are dated. Please do not make this mistake again.
I understand that JonF described a method that might, under the right circumstances, permit the actual sedimentary layer itself to be dated, but please do not become confused by that side discussion. By and large sedimentary layers are not dated directly, they're dated by the igneous layers that bracket them.
We're not going to have yet another thread where people beg you for evidence while decrying your lack of comprehension. Either do the work necessary to understand what people are saying while supporting your position with evidence or stop posting.
Edited by Admin, : Clarifying improvement.
Edited by Admin, : Clarify reason for assuming moderator role in para 1.
I'm not participating in the debate, please do not reply. I just want to help move the discussion forward by providing a very clear description of how the layers being talked about are formed. Here's a very common scenario:
A volcanic eruption deposits a layer of lava. The lava layer cools and solidifies and becomes extrusive igneous rock. The igneous rock can be dated by a variety of radiometric techniques.
After that, sedimentary layers are deposited on top of the lava layer, and these layers contain fossilized remains.
And lastly, another volcanic eruptions deposits a layer of lava on top of the sedimentary layers, and this lava layer also becomes extrusive igneous rock that can be dated radiometrically.