About fossils -- would you say this is true?

[Heyo]

Now the point is though about dating. So now let me ask about bones that may be found unaffected by lithification if that is possible, such as those found in the floor of a cave without having been absorbed, if that's possible. I mean I've read that bones have been found lying in a cave.

Bones, like those from the Drimolen cave, can be dated and there is little risk of errors as the original material is still there. These fossils are usually much younger than lithified bones. There are a range of methods, not only radiometric. Other used are Luminescence dating - Wikipedia and Paleomagnetism - Wikipedia.

 

[crossfire]

Hi. That leads me to the question as to how these objects are dated. Quoting from the link, "Opal forms in cavities within rocks. If the cavity is there because part of a living thing -- for example a bone, shell or pinecone -- was buried in the sand or clay before it turned to stone, then the opal can form a fossil replica of the object that was buried."
If you think I understand that, let's see, I'll try to understand it: The article is speaking of opalized fossils. Opal forms, it says, in cavities within rocks. Then it says that in order for that to form, the bone, or something that was alive would have been buried in sand or clay. So I suppose they mean the sand or clay would eventually turn to stone with the item buried there? because it says "opal forms in cavities within ROCKS."

Here is an blurb with a picture of opalized petrified wood:
https://www.zmescience.com/other/geopicture/geopicture-of-the-week-tree-fossil-with-opal-growth-rings/

 

[Valjean]

OK, now let me see. In your estimation, has this happened yet? (an eruption that moves from one side of the world to another side of the world, if that's what you meant.)

It's happened numerous times, even in recent memory; eruptions leaving traces over thousands of miles or throughout the world.
Time leaves clear, geological traces of itself everywhere. An eruption in Iceland, Siberia or Indonesia, a nuclear accident in Ukraine, magnetic field shifts, tectonic plate movement, floods, glaciers, climate changes -- all leave permanent traces or specific dates.

So would you say it is possible that the soil or sediment can shift, mix with other soil or layers, especially if it is coming from inside a volcano?

Sediments shift all the time, I live only a few Km from an uplift range of mountains, myself, where the layers were tilted.
Luckily, stratigraphic alterations are pretty easy to spot, so displaced layers and fossils are readily recognizable as such. There are numerous fossils of ancient, often extinct, sea creatures on top of the aforementioned mountains, and these cause no confusion, since the geologic history of the region, over hundteds of millions of years, is well known.

 

[Valjean]

ok...but again, can you please explain what type of dating process would be used to examine the age of the sediment. Also, might the sediment carry with it bones?

Sure sediment can contain bones, imprints, petrified fossils, diatoms, pollen, and such. Where else would you find them? Certainly not in a lava flow,
There are lots of dating techniques that can be done on sediments and the rocks and other things in them. Radiometry has been mentioned; fossilized plants, animals, pollen grains, diatoms, tree rings, magnetic orientation, gas inclusions, deposition from major world events like, supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, floods, atomic testing, &c.

 

[Valjean]

How about older material that may have been displaced, or erupted that can leach into a bone? I'm assuming that ground shifting can move objects such as bones, thus placing them in areas much older, if that's possible, because I don't think ground came after animals, but that's a little joke, the point being that the possibility of erroneous dating of bones may enter the picture.

That's why your sample for dating is so important. It should be as uncontaminated and undisturbed as possible. A bad sample can lead to all sorts of errors, and even earn a place in Answers in Genesis.

While that is principally possible, it's usually gravity that puts the mineral rich water towards the bones, i.e. rain water that percolates through the higher strata where it picks up the minerals. But it is possible that older water is forced upwards by pressure.

As @Subduction Zone already said, that's near impossible as fossils move together with the material they are embedded in.
Erroneous dating is always possible and the most important source is contamination - modern contamination.
Scientists therefore use multiple methods to be sure.

@YoursTrue is right. Sediments get disrupted all the time: upended, eroded, cut, displaced, raised, lowered, tumbled, &c. Inclusions get moved around. This may fool amateurs, but any competent geologist will recognize the disruption.
Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

 

[AdamjEdgar]

In the event, C14, like cars and dentistry, its nor perfect. Like cars etc., it works quite well.

Let me put it to you this way...since you clearly do not really appreciate the problem here...

We know from research completed about 2018 (or at least it was published as far as i am aware about this time), that Carbon dating timelines on events between 1610 and 1940 are out by upwards of 20 years due to environmental issues between hemispheres and regions in the world. The study if i understand correctly looked more specifically at issues with dating in regions such as the middle east.

Now you might say "20 year, how is that a problem given we use carbon dating up to about 50,000 years. 20 years is insignificant"

Well, if i understand what i am reading correctly, and i may not be, however, if i am, then in fact its actually a huge problem. Here's why:

2023 back to 1610 is roughly 400 years and the margin of error is 20 years. Oh, that's only a bit worse than we first thought, its still ok no big deal as 20 years isn't too bad really, 400 years is a long time.

Well here's the thing, we know that documented history back to the 17th century is accurate to within a day or so. Some very well known examples of significant figures in history...

Louis XIV
Born 5 September 1638
died 1st September 1715
Buried 9th September 1715

Isaac Newton
Born 14th May 1643
Died 1st September 1638

John Smith
Born 1579
Died 21st June 1631

We know the dates of the above figures (are just a tiny sample) to the exact day based on written documented history, then the real margin for error on the 20year issue with Carbon dating as proven by the 2018 publication of research from university of Cornwell is a disaster for evolutionary timelines.

Written History 1 day accuracry
Carbon Dating 20 year accuracy

difference = 1*365(days in a year) * 20 (years of error in Carbon dating) = 7200

Now that's still not a problem is it? Well, lets go further in our maths...

Constantine the Great

Born 25th July 306
Died 22 May 337

From 306 to 1610 is 1304 years.

1 day (written accuracy) * 365 * 20 (carbon dating Error) * 1304 (years from 1610 to Constantines birth) = 26080

Lets go back further in written history

King Nebuchadnezzar

Born 642 B.C
Died 7th October 562 B.C

1 Day Written Accuracy * 365 * 20 * 2048 (years to 1610) = 14,950,400
Thats 14 Million, 950 thousand, 400 years in error...and yet its only been 2048 years since Nebuchadnezzar lived on this planet..this is documented fact!

Now of course, i have only just quickly thrashed this out in my head and on paper. I have not carefully checked my understanding of the 20year error in Carbon dating. Im playing a bit with probability type figures here where i am saying that a 20 year discpency can exist on any day of a year in history because we don't know the starting point for any radioactive decay...it can begin at any point. So any day can be out by 20 years and there are at least 365 days in each year and any one of those could be the benchmark for the timeline of the day following using Carbon dating habits.

Therefore, if my maths is correct, do you now understand how bad an apparent 20 year discrepancy in Carbon dating really is? Forget Nebuchadnezzar and simply look at other artifacts from that time that are buried with no other means of dating by comparison with known cultural dates...It means that i am showing a date of millions of years for evidence that we know for a fact existed 2000 years ago! And this is not anything to do with the actual time scale that evolutionists use to date..its simply working with the margin of error that is published by those same evolutionary scientists for their own methods of interpretation and comparing that error with the accuracy of documented history! This makes what is seemingly an insignificant error a huge problem! It also explains why there is such a wide chasim between Biblical documented history and evolutionary time lines. I do not see that the type of method of dating makes even a shred of difference to the fundamental issue on this. Its the margin for error that is the problem...not the isotope count!

Or perhaps I've just completely screwed up all my maths on this and if so, i humbly take it on the chin. The point is i think, even if we just altered by a few thousand years, we are completely messing up the timelines of a lot of civilisations around the world such that they existed at absurd times in history given what we know from documented evidence is actually true. This is why i based my beliefs first on written history and not radiometric dating. I am happy to extrapolate from written history...but not from a method of interpretation where no one was actually there documenting the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago. We have no written history of these creatures or when they existed, and our answer is, of the 1% of proposed fossils found, no one has found evidence of humans and that's why there is not documented timeline from then until now.

I wonder what the current ratio of animals to humans is on this planet and given that our density has increased dramatically over the last 2000 years? Given that question and going back further, my thought is that 65 million years ago, the ratio of "upright walkers" to animals would have been minuscule, so its no wonder we don't find any evidence of them in the fossil record the 1% of fossils we have found so far.

 

[Audie]

Let me put it to you this way...since you clearly do not really appreciate the problem here...

We know from research completed about 2018 (or at least it was published as far as i am aware about this time), that Carbon dating timelines on events between 1610 and 1940 are out by upwards of 20 years due to environmental issues between hemispheres and regions in the world. The study if i understand correctly looked more specifically at issues with dating in regions such as the middle east.

Now you might say "20 year, how is that a problem given we use carbon dating up to about 50,000 years. 20 years is insignificant"

Well, if i understand what i am reading correctly, and i may not be, however, if i am, then in fact its actually a huge problem. Here's why:

2023 back to 1610 is roughly 400 years and the margin of error is 20 years. Oh, that's only a bit worse than we first thought, its still ok no big deal as 20 years isn't too bad really, 400 years is a long time.

Well here's the thing, we know that documented history back to the 17th century is accurate to within a day or so. Some very well known examples of significant figures in history...

Louis XIV
Born 5 September 1638
died 1st September 1715
Buried 9th September 1715

Isaac Newton
Born 14th May 1643
Died 1st September 1638

John Smith
Born 1579
Died 21st June 1631

We know the dates of the above figures (are just a tiny sample) to the exact day based on written documented history, then the real margin for error on the 20year issue with Carbon dating as proven by the 2018 publication of research from university of Cornwell is a disaster for evolutionary timelines.

Written History 1 day accuracry
Carbon Dating 20 year accuracy

difference = 1*365(days in a year) * 20 (years of error in Carbon dating) = 7200

Now that's still not a problem is it? Well, lets go further in our maths...

Constantine the Great

Born 25th July 306
Died 22 May 337

From 306 to 1610 is 1304 years.

1 day (written accuracy) * 365 * 20 (carbon dating Error) * 1304 (years from 1610 to Constantines birth) = 26080

Lets go back further in written history

King Nebuchadnezzar

Born 642 B.C
Died 7th October 562 B.C

1 Day Written Accuracy * 365 * 20 * 2048 (years to 1610) = 14,950,400
Thats 14 Million, 950 thousand, 400 years in error...and yet its only been 2048 years since Nebuchadnezzar lived on this planet..this is documented fact!

Now of course, i have only just quickly thrashed this out in my head and on paper. I have not carefully checked my understanding of the 20year error in Carbon dating. Im playing a bit with probability type figures here where i am saying that a 20 year discpency can exist on any day of a year in history because we don't know the starting point for any radioactive decay...it can begin at any point. So any day can be out by 20 years and there are at least 365 days in each year and any one of those could be the benchmark for the timeline of the day following using Carbon dating habits.

Therefore, if my maths is correct, do you now understand how bad an apparent 20 year discrepancy in Carbon dating really is? Forget Nebuchadnezzar and simply look at other artifacts from that time that are buried with no other means of dating by comparison with known cultural dates...It means that i am showing a date of millions of years for evidence that we know for a fact existed 2000 years ago! And this is not anything to do with the actual time scale that evolutionists use to date..its simply working with the margin of error that is published by those same evolutionary scientists for their own methods of interpretation and comparing that error with the accuracy of documented history! This makes what is seemingly an insignificant error a huge problem! It also explains why there is such a wide chasim between Biblical documented history and evolutionary time lines. I do not see that the type of method of dating makes even a shred of difference to the fundamental issue on this. Its the margin for error that is the problem...not the isotope count!

Or perhaps I've just completely screwed up all my maths on this and if so, i humbly take it on the chin. The point is i think, even if we just altered by a few thousand years, we are completely messing up the timelines of a lot of civilisations around the world such that they existed at absurd times in history given what we know from documented evidence is actually true. This is why i based my beliefs first on written history and not radiometric dating. I am happy to extrapolate from written history...but not from a method of interpretation where no one was actually there documenting the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago. We have no written history of these creatures or when they existed, and our answer is, of the 1% of proposed fossils found, no one has found evidence of humans and that's why there is not documented timeline from then until now.

I wonder what the current ratio of animals to humans is on this planet and given that our density has increased dramatically over the last 2000 years? Given that question and going back further, my thought is that 65 million years ago, the ratio of "upright walkers" to animals would have been minuscule, so its no wonder we don't find any evidence of them in the fossil record the 1% of fossils we have found so far.

If you knew what yiu are talking about you would need maybe 5% of the words you used
to get nowhere.

Somethung about "upright walkers" ( that are not animals) among the dinosaurs.

Good grief.

 

[Astrophile]

Isaac Newton
Born 14th May 1643
Died 1st September 1638

According to your account, Isaac Newton died 4 years and 8 months before he was born. He was actually born on 25th December 1642 and died on 20th March 1727 in the Julian calendar. These dates correspond to 4th January 1643 and 31st March 1727 in the Gregorian calendar. Where did you get your information from?

 

[Audie]

According to your account, Isaac Newton died 4 years and 8 months before he was born. He was actually born on 25th December 1642 and died on 20th March 1727 in the Julian calendar. These dates correspond to 4th January 1643 and 31st March 1727 in the Gregorian calendar. Where did you get your information from?

"One percent of fossils have been found"

 

[Astrophile]

King Nebuchadnezzar

Born 642 B.C
Died 7th October 562 B.C

1 Day Written Accuracy * 365 * 20 * 2048 (years to 1610) = 14,950,400
Thats 14 Million, 950 thousand, 400 years in error...and yet its only been 2048 years since Nebuchadnezzar lived on this planet..this is documented fact!

If Nebuchadnezzar died on 7th October 562 BC, his death was 2583 years, 3 months and 11 days ago, not 2048 years.

The rest of your mathematics is incomprehensible nonsense. A radiocarbon dating error of 20 years over a 400 year interval amounts to an error of only about 130 years over an interval of 2583 years.

 

[YoursTrue]

While that is principally possible, it's usually gravity that puts the mineral rich water towards the bones, i.e. rain water that percolates through the higher strata where it picks up the minerals. But it is possible that older water is forced upwards by pressure.

As @Subduction Zone already said, that's near impossible as fossils move together with the material they are embedded in.
Erroneous dating is always possible and the most important source is contamination - modern contamination.
Scientists therefore use multiple methods to be sure.

I actually didn't think I was talking about pressure forcing water upwards. I thought I was talking about shifting layers of soil, perhaps yes, by flooding or some form of upheaval, like earthquake. But now either way, the soil, even if it not moved by some form of disaster would be older than the fossil. In fact, given the knowledge of the formation of the earth prior to life on it, the soil would be MUCH older.

 

[YoursTrue]

If Nebuchadnezzar died on 7th October 562 BC, his death was 2583 years, 3 months and 11 days ago, not 2048 years.

The rest of your mathematics is incomprehensible nonsense. A radiocarbon dating error of 20 years over a 400 year interval amounts to an error of only about 130 years over an interval of 2583 years.

OK, I'm not getting into dates of kings, etc., right now. But I was wondering about written history. Now I've heard that the reason writing didn't start that long ago, maybe 5,000 years, even though hominids have supposedly lived for many years more than that. It is said, without much reason in my mind, that they didn't need writing because they didn't make contracts. So not much can be said in the way of writing observations of the "slow progress" of evolving organisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lithify just means that the sediments became cemented to each other and they set.

Why focus on the obvious? At some point in time the sediments of almost any strata cemented and set.

Because--and I know it sounds elementary--I really did not know that bones themselves are not tested for dates in particular, but the soil or petrified (lithified?) substance forming maybe calcification from surrounding soil is. Maybe I have that wrong, I probably do, feel free to correct me. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's why your sample for dating is so important. It should be as uncontaminated and undisturbed as possible. A bad sample can lead to all sorts of errors, and even earn a place in Answers in Genesis.
@YoursTrue is right. Sediments get disrupted all the time: upended, eroded, cut, displaced, raised, lowered, tumbled, &c. Inclusions get moved around. This may fool amateurs, but any competent geologist will recognize the disruption.
Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia

The best I can conclude about this now is that soil is always older than a bone. And finally I'm right about something!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because--and I know it sounds elementary--I really did not know that bones themselves are not tested for dates in particular, but the soil or petrified (lithified?) substance forming maybe calcification from surrounding soil is. Maybe I have that wrong, I probably do, feel free to correct me. Thank you.

No, they do not test the sediments. Let me try to explain.

Often somewhere in the world there are volcanic eruptions, for dating the usually rely on some sort of volcanic ash. That will temporarily interrupt the usual sedimentary processes of an area and leave a layer of ash. That can be dated. So we know the ages of the sediments and fossils in it just underneath it and immediately over the ash.

Do you understand that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The best I can conclude about this now is that soil is always older than a bone. And finally I'm right about something!!

The source of the sediments is of course older, but when we date a sedimentary rock the dates reflect when it was deposited. Not when the sediments formed. That is usually not of much interest.

 

[YoursTrue]

The source of the sediments is of course older, but when we date a sedimentary rock the dates reflect when it was deposited. Not when the sediments formed. That is usually not of much interest.

I'm a little confused. A sedimentary rock is what? A bone or vestage of something that had been alive left in or on the soil? (or strata)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, they do not test the sediments. Let me try to explain.

Often somewhere in the world there are volcanic eruptions, for dating the usually rely on some sort of volcanic ash. That will temporarily interrupt the usual sedimentary processes of an area and leave a layer of ash. That can be dated. So we know the ages of the sediments and fossils in it just underneath it and immediately over the ash.

Do you understand that?

I don't think so, so let me explain back to you. And thank you for your patience. It's also getting late and my human body is getting tired, so this may be my last post tonight. OK, so let me go over this. You're saying that scientists (paleontologists I suppose) usually rely on some sort of volcanic ash. I don't understand. Are you saying only in those places where they know or discern volcanic ash is, or is that all over the world? And how do they know it is volcanic ash rather than soil? I can only guess it looks different. ? (Sorry I'm so slow about this...)

 

[Left Coast]

I'm a little confused. A sedimentary rock is what? A bone or vestage of something that had been alive left in or on the soil? (or strata)

YoursTrue,

Where do you live? The US?

I've suggested this to you before, but you seem genuinely interested in various scientific subjects. You would benefit from some basic college classes in biology, chemistry, geology. If you're in the States, you can take such introductory courses pretty cheaply at a community college. They cover basically all the content you're asking about. And would give you a foundation for understanding these subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm a little confused. A sedimentary rock is what? A bone or vestage of something that had been alive left in or on the soil? (or strata)

A sedimentary rock is a rock made up of sediments. There are three general classes of rocks. Igneous rocks are formed from molten magma. If the igneous rock is from an eruption it is volcanic. But there are also plutonic volcanic rocks. The magma go close enough to the surfacer to cool and solidify, but not erupt. Granite is an example of that.


Sedimentary rocks are either made up of materials from older rocks that eroded away to rather tiny bits or are from biological sources. Shale is from clays. Mostly eroded and chemically altered. feldspars. For sandstone the most frequent mineral is quartz. It is obviously made from sand. Limestone is usually made mostly of shells, coral, and other sources of calcium carbonate. Most, but not all, sedimentary rocks were deposited by water. Sandstones are usually from beaches, shales and limestone from deeper waters.

The third class of rock is metamorphic. They are formed from either sedimentary or igneous rocks. They involve pressure and partial melting. Marble is limestone that has undergone metamorphosis. Slate is from shale. Quartzite is from sandstone.