Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider

[QUOTE][B]This can be partly answered by how evolutionists "calibrate" their dating to each other.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't see where the "calibrating" fits in. You take concentrations of parent and daughter isotopes and you use the decay equation. I'd like more information on your argument here. [QUOTE][B]However, there are many anomalies-dating supposedly hundreds of millions of years rock using carbon dating gives only a few thousand years.[/QUOTE][/B]Ouch. Wrong on two points: (1) You cannot carbon date rock. You can only carbon-date organic materials. (2) You cannot carbon date anything older than about 50,000 years of age, because by then the ¹⁴C in the sample falls below reasonably measurable limits. The testers have to search the sample harder and harder before they start finding any ¹⁴C to measure. However, there are air pockets in the machine and in the sample, and in those airpockets are molecules of ¹⁴CO₂. In all probability with a really, really old sample those CO2 molecules will be the only carbon-14 found, along with the occasional microbial or pollen contaminent, and there is no telling what age the sample will give. [QUOTE][B]There are also numerous problems with the dating-excess helium, polonium 218 halos are but to name a few.[/QUOTE][/B]Both of these can be refuted at TalkOrigins but since you only mentioned them in passing I'm not going to try to your construe your argument for you just so I can refute it. [This message has been edited by gene90, 08-10-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Anne, what quotes are you referring to? I don't see any quotes in Gene90's message #5.[/QUOTE][/B]The only two quotes came from Blitz's post. The rest was typed-to-order.

[QUOTE][B]I was referring to the layers underneath the lava flows-which by inference should be older shouldn't they?[/QUOTE][/B]Generally but not necessarily. Not if the flow is in an overthrust or if it is actually a sill. [QUOTE][B]And how can that explain why the lava flows can give millions of years while the layers underneath only a few hundred? [/QUOTE][/B]I am frustrated with the above quote because I pointed out that 14C is useless above about 50k. Now, knowing that, *why* would a competant researcher attempt 14C on a layer that, by the principle of superposition, is too old for 14C to be reliable? The answer is that
nobody would, unless that person is a YEC, once again ignoring the common sense warnings of 14C to "prove" a young Earth. Such behavior can be described as nothing less than disgraceful.

[QUOTE][B]However, some of the flows is not an overthrust or a sill--unless you are saying that it could happen over a square mile?[/QUOTE][/B]Of course it can happen over a square mile. Or tens of square miles. [QUOTE][B]Since 14C is useless, then why would it still give a young date?[/QUOTE][/B]Did you or did you not read my post?

[QUOTE][B]Essentially, a sill is an intrusive igneous rock body, that superficially mimics a volcanic flow.[/QUOTE][/B]I probably should have defined a sill in my post to avoid being accused of being disingenuous (a sill, by definition is not really a "lava flow" because it doesn't happen on the surface) but since we are talking about stratigraphy I felt, based on past experiences, that it should be mentioned as a possibility.My prime concern is this use of 14C on rock layers that are too old.