Evidences given for a young-earth

[shunyadragon]

Well then quote from your favorite journal and provide an example of a dinosaur (or something) that was dated by multiple independent methods

Actually no problem. In Japan there are lakes that have at least tens of thousands of annual deposits called lamela. The lemela are being deposited annually now the same way they have been deposited for tens of thousands of years. The age of each lamela can be independently dated simply by counting the layers and any fossils in each layer. The use of radiocarbon dating has confirmed the observed date based on counting the individual layers, and the fossils they contain.

From: 'Time-capsule' Japanese lake sediment advances radiocarbon dating for older objects

A series of radiocarbon measurements from Japan's Lake Suigetsu will give scientists a more accurate benchmark for dating materials, especially for older objects. Researchers extracted cores containing organic material from the bottom of the Japanese lake where it had lain undisturbed for tens of thousands of years. They provide a more precise way to examine radiocarbon ages of organic material for the entire 11,000-53,000-year time range.

There are a number of lakes around the world where this has been done.

 

[leroy]

Post # 282 "It is a fact that most fossils are not dated by multiple independent methods."

Sure i can support my assertion

The majority of the time fossils are dated using relative dating techniques. Using relative dating the fossil is compared to something for which an age is already known.

Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?

Dating fossils is expensive and time consuming, and usually geologist dont have the budget nor the interest of dating the fossil.

The claim that fossils are dated by multiple independent methods is simply irrealistic.

Posted an article on the high school level that describes the regular process. Finding literature on fossils is no problem, Will do.

Thanks but you where suppose to provide an actual example of a fossil that was dated by multiple independent methods.... Can you?

 

[leroy]

Actually no problem. In Japan there are lakes that have at least tens of thousands of annual deposits called lamela. The lemela are being deposited annually now the same way they have been deposited for tens of thousands of years. The age of each lamela can be independently dated simply by counting the layers and any fossils in each layer. The use of radiocarbon dating has confirmed the observed date based on counting the individual layers, and the fossils they contain.

From: 'Time-capsule' Japanese lake sediment advances radiocarbon dating for older objects

A series of radiocarbon measurements from Japan's Lake Suigetsu will give scientists a more accurate benchmark for dating materials, especially for older objects. Researchers extracted cores containing organic material from the bottom of the Japanese lake where it had lain undisturbed for tens of thousands of years. They provide a more precise way to examine radiocarbon ages of organic material for the entire 11,000-53,000-year time range.

There are a number of lakes around the world where this has been done.

Ok C14 was used, but no other independent methods fir confirmation.

Creationist would argue that the ratio of c14 was different in the past and therefore none if the dates in that lake would be reliable

An other completely independent method that does not relly on the assuption that the ratio of c14 has always been constant woyld destroy the YEC defense

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok C14 was used, but no other independent methods fir confirmation.

Creationist would argue that the ratio of c14 was different in the past and therefore none if the dates in that lake would be reliable

Read again the independent method that determined the absolute age + or- one year by counting the lamels that are deposited on a documented annual seasonal basis every year. The radiocarbon dating is an independent confirmation of the age, but determining the age is already independently known.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure i can support my assertion


Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated?

Dating fossils is expensive and time consuming, and usually geologist dont have the budget nor the interest of dating the fossil.

The claim that fossils are dated by multiple independent methods is simply irrealistic.



Thanks but you where suppose to provide an actual example of a fossil that was dated by multiple independent methods.... Can you?

The direct dating of the lamela does not need confirmation, and it is independently accurate.

I did the dating of the lamela is an actual direct independent dating method, and not dependent on any other dating method. In the case of the radio carbon method this dating was independent and the direct counting method only confirms the radiocarbon accuracy. That is how multiple dating methods work. They are done independently, and NOT dependent on each other.

This only demonstrates that your assertion is false, because datinging by each method is independent and not dependent on the other. They just confirm the date by multiple dating methods. If you read the reference there are more dating methods, which can independently date a fossil or the rock.

In science independent measurements as in the lake deposits cannot be interdependent if they are used to confirm a result.

For example if I use two methods to confirm the pH of a soil sample such as a calibrated pH meter (most accurate lab method) and pH sensitive liquids. One test result is not dependent on the other. The results of the two tests are used to confirm the pH, and confirm the less accurate method of using pH sensitive liquids commonly used as a field method.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you still can’t provide an example of “double checking” right? All you have to say is assertion after assertion but you never support your claims.

Every example would be an example.

The point: you're missing it.

This isn't just true for dating. This is true for all of experimental science. You don't trust your results. So you double-check and tripple-check and repeat your tests. Others repeat your tests.

Why do you think that clinical trials use a double blind methodology?
I'm sorry that you are so uneducated in the sciences that you have no clue about this stuff.

The truth is that usually fossils are not dated (nor the rocks around it) in most of the cases scientists assign an age based on what they “already know” for example if a fossils is found in the “Ellisdale Fossil Site” they would “know” that the fossils is from the late cretaceous and they will simply assign an age that would “sound reasonable”

Owkay then.

You are quite hilarious.

 

[sooda]

So you know better. Josephus gives all kinds of numbers. The time of the Roman
siege was the Passover - people poured in from all over Israel, and the canny
Romans let them in, but didn't let them out.
I suggest a figure for about three or four million Jews died during the three wars.
Must look that up - but certainly, not something like Wikipedia.
It's probably like this - ancient authors sometimes exaggerated, but we don't know
which is the exaggeration.

Palestine never had a population of over 750,000 people and I am including Galilee and the Decapolis.

Its a good idea for you to do some research.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because in history and Scripture which records the past, there are key differences in what life was like here. Since science doesn't know, there is no reason to doubt it.

Science does know. You just prefer to believe the superstitious ramblings of bronze aged goat herders who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun.

 

[sooda]

Yes, I consider the reference to Jesus to be fake. Patently so.
Josephus was a Pharisee and the policy of the religious leaders
(those in the so-called "gate" in David's vision of Jesus) was not
to give Christians the oxygen of historic authority.

I think there were 80 million people in the Roman empire. The
Jews being six or seven million, I suppose, wasn't that big a
number. They were quite prosperous and widely spread.

In the first century AD the population of the Roman Empire is around 56 million people.

Jews were a tiny minority living in Alexandria, Aleppo, Elephantine Island, Damascus and Persia... There were also Jewish communities in Rome, Turkey and all around the Mediterrean .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, it isn’t.

It certainly doesn’t fit what is found in the Cambrian Radiation.

There is nothing in the cambrian that doesn't fit evolution theory dude.

 

[sooda]

Science does know. You just prefer to believe the superstitious ramblings of bronze aged goat herders who didn't even know the earth orbits the sun.

Some Christians reject science and education. They have to believe the scripture is literal history and neglect looking at the message in the myth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is evidence for micro evolution, and has no bearing on common descent.

The difference between micro and macro is conceptual only.
The underlying process is the exact same.

This is biology 101.

But of course, you believe pakicetus is the forerunner of whales ....you have to believe some land mammal returned to the water

They factually did.

, really....so I’m sure a few of you materialists, with your imaginations, will eventually arrive at a conclusion regarding some flimsy, fantastical evidence claiming it supports certain organisms’ evolution into the Cambrian organisms. But I doubt there’ll be consensus...there rarely is.

Many (evolutionary) biologists are theists, dude.
Stop trying to make mainstream biology into some atheist / materialist conspiracy nonsense. You're only making yourself look like an uneducated fool

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, let’s look at it....



Excerpt:
“In work that led to Australia and back, researchers **believe** that microfossils previously thought to be algae may actually be a specialized type of egg case, laid by an animal precursor for that explosion of life.”

As I stated, it’s always supposition (but at least they’re candid & honest about it); you make it sound like it’s writ in stone. Recall I said, “obvious” precursors?
“May actually be” does not equate to obvious!
I may actually be Santa Claus.

Another thing: these researchers have beliefs, like faith. Interesting.

Like I said, you’ll grasp at straws. “Specialized egg shell casings”, wow!
I’m dishonest?

But at least the article does say regarding the Cambrian life forms, “the **creatures** that suddenly appear in the fossil record...” I know many naturalists don’t want to use that phrase “suddenly”. And I appreciate that the author uses the term, “creatures”.

Excerpt:
“Scientists have long puzzled over the **sudden appearance** of these complex creatures because they must have evolved from precursors that appear to be missing from the pre-Cambrian fossil record.”
Interpreting evidence to fit a presupposed default conclusion? This is what hinders genuine science....it’s not
enough to throw together any fanciful ideas and claim that they represent possible pathways for evolution. These pathways must be backed by some sort of evidence that shows they are possible, not just assertion.

Don't you love it when fundamentalist science bashers complain about the use of intellectually honest language in science publications?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok C14 was used, but no other independent methods fir confirmation.

Creationist would argue that the ratio of c14 was different in the past and therefore none if the dates in that lake would be reliable

An other completely independent method that does not really on the assumption that the ratio of c14 has always been constant would destroy the YEC defense

Actually if you read carefully this reference on the lake lamela for Lake Biwa in Japan it is an annual record of over 400,000 years, without even considering C14 dating. It is an accurate world climate record for this period of time, and even is a record dating the recent glacial ages of the world based on the amount of organic deposits in each annual layer, also dating the fossils in each later.

See Quaternary changes in delivery and accumulation of organic matter in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan

I also went into detail how stratigraphy independently dates the history of the earth in this thread.

Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

Therefore the religious agenda of the YEC is busted including the myth of a world or regional flood.

 

[PruePhillip]

Palestine never had a population of over 750,000 people and I am including Galilee and the Decapolis.

Its a good idea for you to do some research.

Josephus wrote about the AD66 war.
If I recall over a million people were killed in the siege of Jerusalem alone.
He ought to know - he was there. And that's just Jerusalem, and that's
just the first of three wars.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually if you read carefully this reference on the lake lamela for Lake Biwa in Japan it is an annual record of over 400,000 years, without even considering C14 dating. It is an accurate world climate record for this period of time, and even is a record dating the recent glacial ages of the world based on the amount of organic deposits in each annual layer, also dating the fossils in each later.

See Quaternary changes in delivery and accumulation of organic matter in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan

I also went into detail how stratigraphy independently dates the history of the earth in this thread.

Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

Therefore the religious agenda of the YEC is busted including the myth of a world or regional flood.

Yes, that lake is quite famous. If you have an issue with carbon dating then
refer to that lake.
As it is, new and more sophisticated carbon dating actually provides OLDER
dates.

 

[sooda]

If I recall over a million people were killed in the siege of Jerusalem alone.
He ought to know - he was there. And that's just Jerusalem, and that's
just the first of three wars.

The one certainty in the Bible narratives is exaggeration.. Look at Genesis. 3 million people leave Egypt and 40 years later Jerusalem is a city on 8 acres with a population of less than a thousand people.

Palestine was too poor.. They didn't have arable land or water or pasture to support a million people.

Such grandiosity .. like "Solomon's empire"..

 

[leroy]

Actually if you read carefully this reference on the lake lamela for Lake Biwa in Japan it is an annual record of over 400,000 years, without even considering C14 dating. It is an accurate world climate record for this period of time, and even is a record dating the recent glacial ages of the world based on the amount of organic deposits in each annual layer, also dating the fossils in each later.

See Quaternary changes in delivery and accumulation of organic matter in sediments of Lake Biwa, Japan

I also went into detail how stratigraphy independently dates the history of the earth in this thread.

Stratigraphy, radiometric evidence, fossil evidence, and genetics.

Therefore the religious agenda of the YEC is busted including the myth of a world or regional flood.

We are not talking about independent methods, the study was about calibrating C14 clocks. Both the C14 and the “couting of layers” is based on the assumption that these are annual records, if the assumption is wrong both C14 and counting would be wrong.

The study simply exposes a weakness of radiometric dating, apparently one has to calibrate the clocks prior to using the dating technique, and while it is possible to calibrate “clocks” that are a few thousand years old, who has ever calibrated clocks that are millions of years old? If the ratio of C14-C12 is not constant as the study shows, what makes you think that the ratio of the different isotopes Argon has always been constant? (the implication is that if the ratio of argon has not been constant, then the Ar-Ar dating method wouldn’t work)

+ the fact that my argument is not that we never have examples of independent verification, my arguments that fossils are usually not dated by multiple independent methods, and I supported the assertion with a source. ¿do you have a source that suggests otherwise?....It is specially rare to have independent verification with fossils that are millions of years old.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, that lake is quite famous. If you have an issue with carbon dating then
refer to that lake.
As it is, new and more sophisticated carbon dating actually provides OLDER
dates.

The bringing up the lake deposits is because many doubt radiometric dates, and the lake deposits are an accurate direct measurement for 400,000 years or more that correlates with radiometric dating and other dating methods. Yes, for older dating the best way is to correlate different radiometric dating methods, and other modern dating methods..

 

[shunyadragon]

We are not talking about independent methods, the study was about calibrating C14 clocks. Both the C14 and the “couting of layers” is based on the assumption that these are annual records, if the assumption is wrong both C14 and counting would be wrong.

The study simply exposes a weakness of radiometric dating, apparently one has to calibrate the clocks prior to using the dating technique, and while it is possible to calibrate “clocks” that are a few thousand years old, who has ever calibrated clocks that are millions of years old? If the ratio of C14-C12 is not constant as the study shows, what makes you think that the ratio of the different isotopes Argon has always been constant? (the implication is that if the ratio of argon has not been constant, then the Ar-Ar dating method wouldn’t work)

+ the fact that my argument is not that we never have examples of independent verification, my arguments that fossils are usually not dated by multiple independent methods, and I supported the assertion with a source. ¿do you have a source that suggests otherwise?....It is specially rare to have independent verification with fossils that are millions of years old.

You need to document these claims above. It is easy for me to cite other older dating of fossils in published material. No problem and I will do so.

The bold above is basically not true concerning the peer reviewed research that requires multiple dating methods to confirm the date. It is true many fossils are not rigorously dated, but the they are associated with strata and fossils that are not used in specific peer reviewed research, and dated by other fossils in peer reviewed research. You are still avoiding the issue that the lamela dating method is directly accurate for over 400,000 years and does not require the accuracy to be compared to other dating methods. This dating method is used to confirm other dating methods and dates of such things as the recent Ice Ages.

It is not especially rare for verification of fossils older than a million years old, in fact it required if they are used in peer reviewed research. The process remains that stratigraphy is first used, and correlated with other fossil finds in the same stratigraphy, and then independently tested by radiometric and other dating methods as cross confirmation of dates. There is a huge amount of peer reviewed literature that has used multiple dating methods that is most often required for publication,

More to follow . . .