Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
103 online now:
dwise1, nwr, ringo (3 members, 100 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,049 Year: 5,161/6,534 Month: 4/577 Week: 72/135 Day: 3/1 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Okay to all Creationist: Here's some things for you to consider
gene90
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 34 (15142)
08-10-2002 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by blitz77
08-10-2002 10:46 AM


[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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by blitz77, posted 08-10-2002 10:46 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by acmhttu01_2006, posted 08-10-2002 11:48 AM gene90 has taken no action
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 8:28 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 8 of 34 (15155)
08-10-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by wj
08-10-2002 12:18 PM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by wj, posted 08-10-2002 12:18 PM wj has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 8:25 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 22 of 34 (15368)
08-13-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by blitz77
08-11-2002 8:28 AM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by blitz77, posted 08-11-2002 8:28 AM blitz77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by blitz77, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 24 of 34 (15427)
08-14-2002 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by blitz77
08-14-2002 7:16 AM


[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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by blitz77, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 AM blitz77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-14-2002 10:13 AM gene90 has taken no action

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3097 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 28 of 34 (15442)
08-14-2002 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Minnemooseus
08-14-2002 1:38 PM


[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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-14-2002 1:38 PM Minnemooseus 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