Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6169 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 182 of 357 (393401)
04-04-2007 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-15-2005 8:24 PM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
A lot of information indeed. I will concern myself with the radio metric dating since they yield the oldest ages. The following resources is partly why I doubt radio-metric dating. I encourage you to question them.
From: http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/pigs.asp
quote:
The above account highlights two major fallacies of radioactive dating. First, the history of the dating of the KBS Tuff reveals that no matter how careful a scientist is in selecting his rock samples and in performing his laboratory work, if he gets the wrong date for his rocks he is open to the charge of using contaminated material and defective methodology. The charges need not be proved. The literature suggests that even if radiometric dating were valid in concept (which it is not), the practical matter of selecting rock samples that can be proved pure and uncontaminated requires an omniscience beyond humans. The radioactive dating methods are a classic example of self-deception and circular reasoning. It is another of the myths of evolution.
quote:
Second, what normally happens in a fossil discovery is that the fossils are discovered first. Then attempts are made to date the rock strata in which they are found. Under these conditions, a palaeoanthropologist has a degree of control over the results. He is free to reject dates that do not fit the evolution scenario of the fossils. He is not even required to publish those 'obviously anomalous' dates. The result is a very sanguine and misleading picture of the conformity of the human fossil record with the concept of human evolution.
Emphasis mine
And my favourite part of this essay:
quote:
In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins.
This last part says that the pigs won over all the dating methods, even though they were so much in agreeance with one another.
I will go back to another argument creationists have. It talks about recent volcanic rock being dated at around a million years. I understand the argument that recent lava flows should not be measured because K-Ar method is only usefull for rocks older than 100,000 years old
However, a young sample should return very little or no Argon, and the dating company should say the rock is too young to be dated. However the results are mostly around 1 million years. And I understood that 100,000 years was the lower limit? Here, from this paper:
quote:
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K-Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K-Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp
And another paper speaks of the U Pb method, how it too is very unreliable.
quote:
The above evidence conclusively demonstrates that the U/Pb system, including its intermediate daughter products, especially Ra and Rn, has been so open with repeated large scale migrations of the elements that it is impossible to be sure of the precise status/history of any piece of pitchblende selected for dating. Even though geochronologists take every conceivable precaution when selecting pitchblende grains for dating, in the light of the above evidence, no one could be sure that the U and Pb they are measuring is ”original’ and unaffected by the gross element movements observed and measured. Those pitchblende grains dated have always contained Pb, both within their crystal lattices and as microscopic inclusions of galena, making it impossible to be sure that all the Pb was generated by radioactive decay from U. In addition, the pitchblende grains don’t have uniform compositions so that ”dating’ of sub-sections of any grain would tend to yield widely divergent U/Pb ratios and therefore varying ”ages’ within that single grain
The age of Australian Uranium | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2005 8:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Chiroptera, posted 04-04-2007 10:34 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 184 by Coragyps, posted 04-04-2007 10:43 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 7:09 AM Reserve has not replied
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 7:42 AM Reserve has replied
 Message 191 by JonF, posted 04-06-2007 10:39 AM Reserve has replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6169 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 187 of 357 (393531)
04-05-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by RAZD
04-05-2007 7:42 AM


Re: Correlations is the game
I await your information on these correlations. Without explaining these correlations this shows that these dates are indeed valid and the methods for obtaining them resulted in accurate results.
Note too that the ice core data correlates between arctic and antarctic cores, so you have four sets of data with the same results.
But one source mentioned that the 'pigs took it all' in that the correlation between radiometric dating didn't matter at that time. That the correlation was disregarded due to the pigs. So why would it matter here? I used also pointe out a reference that said that evolutionary old age assumptions are used prior to get old dates and agreement between them, this was explained as circular reasoning and why you get corrolation.
I have an article on ice layers, and why they do not give millions of years.
Link: The Institute for Creation Research
quote:
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.
quote:
When these factors are taken into account, the average annual thickness of ice at Camp Century located near the northern tip of Greenland is believed to vary from about fourteen inches near the surface to less than two inches near the bottom (Hammer, et al., 1978). If, for simplicity, we assume the average annual thickness to be the mean between the annual thickness at the top and at the bottom (about eight inches), this still gives an age of less than 6000 years for the 4000-foot-thick ice sheet to form under uniformitarian conditions.
Emhasis mine.
quote:
However, such estimates are critically based on the assumption that the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past. Unlike the Greenland ice cores, annual oscillations of 18O and other parameters cannot be traced deeply into the ice sheet on Antarctica. In Greenland, the high precipitation rates not only provide relatively thick annual layers for analysis, but the accumulating snow quickly seals off the ice beneath and protects the record from metamorphosis by pressure and temperature changes in the atmosphere. In Antarctica, by the time the ice has been buried deeply enough to no longer be influenced by the atmosphere, annual variations have been greatly dampened by diffusion (Epstein, et al., 1965; Johnsen, et al., 1972).
Another source concerning The Green River Formation of Wyoming, USA
where annual layers give million years:
quote:
The reason is that the deposit is said to consist of several million thin layers of shale, each of which is said to represent a single season”s deposition in an ancient lake (the coarser layers in the summer, and the finer layers in the winter)
However, according to the creationist:
quote:
However, the critics (who in any case err by relying on the incomplete data of fallible scientists, rather than the infallible God who knows all data) leave out some vital information that sheds light on the origin of ”varves’. As long ago as 1961, creationists were pointing out features of the Green River Formation that were difficult to reconcile with the conventional varve interpretation.5 For instance, well-preserved fossils are abundant and widespread throughout the sediments. According to two conventional geologists:
”. . . fossil catfish are distributed in the Green River basin over an area of 16,000 km2 . . . The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm, with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved.’6
Another evolutionist stated:
”During the early to mid-1970s enormous concentrations of Presbyornis [an extinct shorebird] have been discovered in the Green River Formation.’7
This should tell us that the Green River Formation is no ordinary lake deposit! Modern-day lakes do not provide the conditions needed for the preservation of abundant fossil fish and birds.
quote:
Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected.8
So it seems that there are more complicated things to take into account that uniformatarians are not doing. Their assumption that 'the present is the key to the past' is leading them to false answers.
You see why I have trouble agreeing with your statements? In my eyes, the interpretations you are bringing forward, are not taking into account Noah's flood, but that is because they do not believe it happened. (you might say for good reasons).
Edited by Reserve, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 7:42 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Coragyps, posted 04-05-2007 5:11 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 8:49 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 192 by Chiroptera, posted 04-06-2007 10:45 AM Reserve has not replied
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 8:40 PM Reserve has not replied

Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6169 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 200 of 357 (394209)
04-10-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by JonF
04-06-2007 10:39 AM


Re: It just keeps adding up -- the earth is OLD.
Once the constituents of the samples were completely understood and valid, well-defined, well-understood, and replicable sample selection and preparation methods were established, all the methods gave concordant dates.
And who decides when we have the complete understanding of the samples? You are saying that all dates given by dating methods is due to a complete understanding, including history of the samples. In other words, we are omniscient and can know everything about a sample. I just have to disagree with you on that. The dates were not conclusive based on a complete understanding, but on the best date that fit with the evolutionary theory. Thats it. Not because the dates just fall from the observations, but because it needs to fit with the ToE. Who is to say we will not find some more understanding on all the history of all the rocks? (e.g. the flood in Noah's day). Once we understand this, dates will be overthrown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by JonF, posted 04-06-2007 10:39 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by RickJB, posted 04-10-2007 10:35 AM Reserve has not replied
 Message 202 by ringo, posted 04-10-2007 12:25 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 203 by JonF, posted 04-10-2007 5:37 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 10:07 PM Reserve 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