Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,164 Year: 5,421/9,624 Month: 446/323 Week: 86/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 64 of 136 (619408)
06-09-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Chuck77
06-07-2011 1:48 AM


Re: Genesis...
Huh??? Im not sure they EVER carbon dated any dino bones because that would prove they existed recently. they wont do it.
They don't use 14C to date dino bones for the same reason that you don't use a yard stick to measure the width of a human hair. Using the smallest increment on a yard stick you will find that every human hair is 1/8th of an inch across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Chuck77, posted 06-07-2011 1:48 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 79 of 136 (619558)
06-10-2011 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Chuck77
06-10-2011 4:47 AM


Re: Preserved Soft Tissue
For now i believe the creation Scientists account of the age of the dino's.
Why? And what is this account? What methodologies do they use to date fossils? What do they measure in rocks that allows them to attach a date to the rock's formation?
Btw Fossils don't come with dates on them. You cant date them. I suppose they date the rock? Can you date sedementary rock?
From my reading on the subject, scientists date igneous rocks. This can take the form of sedimentary layers, such as tuffs. These are rocks that formed from fallen volcanic ash. These tuffs are used to date the eruption. By finding a tuff below and above a fossil you can give an age range for that fossil (younger than the tuff below it, older than the tuff above it). Obviously, lava flows or intrusions above and below a fossil can also be used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Chuck77, posted 06-10-2011 4:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 12:08 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 81 of 136 (619569)
06-10-2011 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coyote
06-10-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Dating fossils
One thing creationists love to be wrong about is "circular dating."
Indeed. If they start down this path ask them how scientists are able to date asteroids.
And if there are unique marker fossils in a particular layer we can then date that layer in other areas by means of those marker fossils. That is a lot easier and cheaper and much quicker.
Thus the creationists' (false) claim that we date fossils by layers and layers by fossils or some such silliness.
If you are aiming for a less confrontational response you could state that index fossils are used, but that they are also checked against radiometric methodologies when appropriate. More importantly, the age range for any index fossil was first established by radiometric dating. Prior to radiometric dating the best a geologist could do was a relative age compared to other geologic structures.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coyote, posted 06-10-2011 12:08 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10191
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 128 of 136 (625791)
07-25-2011 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
This assertion is based on common sense rather than scientifically knowing just how long 'soft tissue' will remain soft tissue for in any particular environment.
Arguments from common sense are logical fallacies. Many findings in science have gone against common sense. For example, light can be both a particle and a wave. This goes against common sense, but that doesn't mean it is false.
This T. rex was found in a very well documented strata that is one of the most accurately dated strata around. That fossil is as old as they say it is. Whatever material they find in it has survived that long. No amount of incredulity refutes the facts.
If researchers or related articles have misrepresented the information I use, please refute as you have. I can then add this to my folder of misrepresetations.
Never trust secondary sources where science is involved. Secondary sources get a lot of things seriously wrong. Always go to the primary source. In the primary research paper it describes how the fossil was soaked for a long period of time before anything soft was observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 9:38 PM Taq has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024