50,000 year old forest found, Gulf of Mexico:

Originally posted by humy

…. old earth …. …. carbon-dating ….

You do know that carbon dating is not used to date the Earth, right?

Carbon dating is NEVER used to date the oldest rocks and oldest fossils. As far as I am aware, Potassium-argon dating is the main radiometric dating used for the oldest rocks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Potas ...[text shortened]... d Earth!? if not, then this because your religious belief in young earth is not evidence-based.

Carbon dating shouldn't be used to date the earth and I think all scientist know that now. I don't see how Potassium-argon dating would give a reliable date either, since the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old. None of these methods are reliable since the do not have any control samples of know dates to compare them with. They are simply being compared with assumed dates. And to ASSUME can make an ASS out of U and Me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Carbon dating shouldn't be used to date the earth and I think all scientist know that now. I don't see how Potassium-argon dating would give a reliable date either, since the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old. None of these methods are reliable since the do not have any control samples of know dates to compare them with. They are simply being compared with assumed dates. And to ASSUME can make an ASS out of U and Me.

The Instructor

to what age do you think we can accurately test for? can we go up to 6000years?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
to what age do you think we can accurately test for? can we go up to 6000years?

With our present knowledge, it seems that 6000 years is not likely. I would guess that we would be just lucky to guess the age of something 4,000 years old.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
With our present knowledge, it seems that 6000 years is not likely. I would guess that we would be just lucky to guess the age of something 4,000 years old.

The Instructor

what happens at 5,000 years, do you believe the margin of error increases or that the science just stops working?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Carbon dating shouldn't be used to date the earth and I think all scientist know that now. I don't see how Potassium-argon dating would give a reliable date either, since the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old. None of these methods are reliable since the do not have any control samples of know dates to compare them with. They are simply being compared with assumed dates. And to ASSUME can make an ASS out of U and Me.

The Instructor

Carbon dating shouldn't be used to date the earth and I think all scientist know that now.

What do you mean by “scientist know that now”? don't you know that scientists have ALWAYS known that?

I don't see how Potassium-argon dating would give a reliable date either, since the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old.

oh right! So I take it that the premise for your belief that the evidence for Potassium-argon dating would not be a reliable indicator of the age of the Earth is that “ the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old” because everything you religion says must be the truth regardless of the evidence. Well, Potassium-argon dating has been scientifically determined to be by far at least reliable enough to tell us some rocks are irrefutably millions of years old and there is no way past that.

None of these methods are reliable since the do not have any control samples of know dates to compare them with.

That is simply not true. Just for starter, we have samples that we know that are just a few thousand years old and we can use a dating method normally used for much older samples on those younger samples to check that it is not wildly off by checking it doesn't give a date in the millions of years!
In addition, we can use more than one method to date the same sample and by using two different methods (like we very often have done) and getting approximately the same age, we can verify the reliability of the dates for it obviously would be an astonishing coincidence if two (or more) very different methods were used to date the sample and for BOTH methods to be BOTH way off with the actual dates AND just happen to give a very close approximation of the SAME wildly wrong dates!
-How would you rationalize such an astonishing coincidence?

They are simply being compared with assumed dates.

No, they are not. It is just a trivial observation that they are not because that is not how the standard dating methods work.
Have you got any evidence that they are all “compared with assumed dates” and that the dates are determined merely by such 'comparisons'? -and explain how that would work anyway!? -what you suggest doesn't even make any sense.

Originally posted by humy

Carbon dating shouldn't be used to date the earth and I think all scientist know that [b]now.

What do you mean by “scientist know that now”? don't you know that scientists have ALWAYS known that?
[quote] I don't see how Potassium-argon dating would give a reliable date either, since the earth is only a little over 6,000 year ...[text shortened]... -and explain how that would work anyway!? -what you suggest doesn't even make any sense.[/b]

It appears that you will continue to make up excuses just like all the other evilutionists to make the universe and the earth very old to your theory has a chance of happening.

The instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
It appears that you will continue to make up excuses just like all the other evilutionists to make the universe and the earth very old to your theory has a chance of happening.

The instructor

You continue in your deliberate obfuscation. By this time, at least from reading our posts, that the age of the Earth is verified by cross referencing at least 10 different methods of obtaining dates. They don't just go, the potassium dating technique says the Earth is 3 billion years old and just go with that one number. They use, like I said, at least 10 different methods and they have to agree within reason for the result to be considered real.

But you and your obstructionist buddies continue to pick on only one or two dating methods and think weak minded individuals will fall for your tricks.

We know full well it is just that: Tricks. We know full well you understand most if not all the methods of dating material but you are just interested in destroying entire scientific disciplines and will use whatever weapon you think will work at any given time.

I'm sure you know full well the scientists who give the phony data in their mad attempt to destroy evolution knows ALL the methods of dating also but carefully neglect to give those details in their rabid rush to destroy.

You must think we are all weak minded idiots to fall for your asinine arguments.

Guess what. We are all smart here, way above average and see right through your transparent motives. It's not even that difficult.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You continue in your deliberate obfuscation. By this time, at least from reading our posts, that the age of the Earth is verified by cross referencing at least 10 different methods of obtaining dates. They don't just go, the potassium dating technique says the Earth is 3 billion years old and just go with that one number. They use, like I said, at least 10 ...[text shortened]... y above average and see right through your transparent motives. It's not even that difficult.

Here are 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth



Evilutionary scientist only assume that the rate of decay was the same today as it was in the past.

Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

1. Initial conditions are known
2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent isotopes is known (zero date problem)
3. A constant decay rate
4. There is no leaching or addition of parent or daughter isotopes

Radiometric dating methods have never been correct when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old!.

Andrew A. Snelling comments for one research project:

"Available evidence indicates the excessively old 'ages' are due to excess Ar-40 in the basalt which was not derived from in- situ decay of parent K-40 but inherited by the lava from its source."

"All K-Ar and Ar-Ar 'dates' of crustal rocks are questionable." (D. Pitman, Radiometric Dating Methods, 2004)

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here are 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe.

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth



Evilutionary scientist only assume that the rate of decay was the same today as it was in the past.

Most rock dating methods rely on the following basic assumptions:

1. Initial conditions are known
2. Initial ratio of daughter/parent is ...[text shortened]... rocks are questionable." (D. Pitman, Radiometric Dating Methods, 2004)

The Instructor

If the decay rates were that much higher in the past that we are making a 6 orders of magnitude error in our age of the earth estimates then no life on earth would have been possible due to the ultra-intense radiation that would have bathed the earth. You need far too much to have happened for your ludicrous timescale.

1) No, we work back from what we observe now and deduce (probable) initial conditions. They are not assumed.
2) Again, we work back based on known laws of physics.
3) See above. Also there are good reasons to believe these things don't change.
4) There is no reason that that would happen.

Can you provide a reference in a peer reviewed journal for either Snelling or Pitman?

Originally posted by DeepThought
If the decay rates were that much higher in the past that we are making a 6 orders of magnitude error in our age of the earth estimates then no life on earth would have been possible due to the ultra-intense radiation that would have bathed the earth. You need far too much to have happened for your ludicrous timescale.

1) No, we work back from what w appen.

Can you provide a reference in a peer reviewed journal for either Snelling or Pitman?

No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals. I think the last time I read one, it was Nature. It was only available in the Medical College Library. Well, it is a University now.

Here is a link for information on Dr. Snelling.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

You can find Radiometric Dating Methods by Sean D. Pitman M.D. at the link below:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals. I think the last time I read one, it was Nature. It was only available in the Medical College Library. Well, it is a University now.

Here is a link for information on Dr. Snelling.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

You can find Radiometric Dating Methods by S ...[text shortened]... D. at the link below:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

The Instructor

You keep saying the Earth is 6000 odd years old but what about the moon? When did all those millions of impacts happen? Did they all happen at once 6000 years ago? If they were more spread out in time, why didn't ancient astronomers note any flashes on the moon, which seems to have been noted only a few times in recorded history, one being in the 1300's by some monks which totally freaked them out, seeing a large flash on the moon.

Why don't we see them once an hour or some such? People were around 6000 years ago so why aren't there stories of the moon lighting up like a christmas tree?

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals. I think the last time I read one, it was Nature. It was only available in the Medical College Library. Well, it is a University now.

Here is a link for information on Dr. Snelling.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

You can find Radiometric Dating Methods by S ...[text shortened]... D. at the link below:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

The Instructor

I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals.

WE KNOW. Your sources of info are invalid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals. I think the last time I read one, it was Nature. It was only available in the Medical College Library. Well, it is a University now.

Here is a link for information on Dr. Snelling.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/a_snelling.asp

You can find Radiometric Dating Methods by S ...[text shortened]... D. at the link below:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

The Instructor

"No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals"

if you did you would know that dr snelling is a geologist who has written many papers supporting old earth.

and you should know that pitman is a medical doctor who makes money selling pseudo-science creationist books to people dumb enough to buy them. if he doesnt write scientific papers, can you tell us which scientific papers he has sourced and quoted from in his article?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"No, I am not in the habit of reading peer reviewed journals"

if you did you would know that dr snelling is a geologist who has written many papers supporting old earth.

and you should know that pitman is a medical doctor who makes money selling pseudo-science creationist books to people dumb enough to buy them. if he doesnt write scientifi ...[text shortened]... papers, can you tell us which scientific papers he has sourced and quoted from in his article?[/b]

No, he would never do that because that would have to be an implicit admission there was validity in these evil sciences so you can forget that particular route.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You keep saying the Earth is 6000 odd years old but what about the moon? When did all those millions of impacts happen? Did they all happen at once 6000 years ago? If they were more spread out in time, why didn't ancient astronomers note any flashes on the moon, which seems to have been noted only a few times in recorded history, one being in the 1300's by ...[text shortened]... nd 6000 years ago so why aren't there stories of the moon lighting up like a christmas tree?

The impacts must have been more frequent in the past, therefore there was nothing unusual to write about and writing material was a little more scarce in those days.

The instructor