Evidences given for a young-earth

[leroy]

You wouldn’t use radiocarbon (C14) to date anything older than 55,000 years old.

You are ignoring other radioactive isotopes, such as -

• lead (eg Pb-206 and Pb-207);
• uranium-lead (U-Pb) eg U-238 decays to Pb-206, or U-235 to Pb-207;
• potassium-argon (K-Ar), eg K-40 decays to Ar-40.

The dating of these rocks, are dependence on the composition of rock minerals, for instance, if these minerals contain lead, or potassium, or argon, etc.

K-40 are more useful dating any minerals that contains potassium, for instances,

• weathering feldspars (more specifically KAlSi3O4), which are most often found in clay minerals (hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates);
• weathering of micas (eg Biotite Lepidolite Phlogopite Zinnwaldite, Muscovite, etc) all contained potassium.

For example, U-Pb are the only known radiometric dating that can date zircon. Zircon (zirconium silicate, or ZrSiO4.), that contained trace amounts of uranium and thorium. It is zircon that can be used to date (billions of years) rock of Precambrian crust, using U-Pb dating method.

The question is why creationists argued against the known limitations of c-14 dating, when there several other methods, that creationists continue to ignore?

My point is that apparently one has to know a priory the age of the sample before deciding which dating method we should use. For me in seems to be circular reasoning.

If you find a T-rex you would naturally assume that it is older than 45,000 years and therefore you would never use C14, you would rather use a method that would confirm your “previous knowledge” on how old the bones are supposed to be,


Quite frankly you seem to be confirming the creationists claim which states that radiometric is based on circular logic.

 

[gnostic]

My point is that apparently one has to know a priory the age of the sample before deciding which dating method we should use. For me in seems to be circular reasoning.

If you find a T-rex you would naturally assume that it is older than 45,000 years and therefore you would never use C14, you would rather use a method that would confirm your “previous knowledge” on how old the bones are supposed to be,


Quite frankly you seem to be confirming the creationists claim which states that radiometric is based on circular logic.

Oh, good grief.

You really don’t understand the concept of testings in science (eg Scientific Method, observation, experiments, verifiable evidence), do you?

Only a very illogical and very ignorant person will keep his or her head bury in the sand. Ignorance must be bliss for you.

You do know scientists test evidences, don’t you?

They do it so they can (A) refute what are false with any statement given or (B) verify any valid statement.

If you were a competent scientist, you would be thorough and rigorously test all findings.

Any paleontologist and geologist would know not to rely on just one method of testings.

Science is all about VERIFICATION, or didn’t they teach you in high school science, Leroy?

When you did physics or chemistry experiment, did you only perform once?

When I did, I remember performing 3 to 4 times, record all measurements, to ensure there were no errors or anomalies. If you were using measuring the current and voltage, it is at least best to measure with two separate multimeters. If they give very different readings, then you would know something is wrong.

What would you dim, Leroy? Would keep using a faulty multimeter? How would you know which device is wrong?

I would measure with 3rd or even 4 multimeters, to find which of the 2 originally multimeters I have been using is giving false data.

That’s how I would verify anything.

Your narrow-minded focus on just using using C-14 only demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Earth science and paleontology.

You do realize that radioactive decay just don’t start and end with carbon 14?

There are a number of radioactive isotopes with longer half-life than C-14.

Potassium-40 isotope used in K-Ar radiometric, have half-life of 1.28 billion years. Why wouldn’t I use this date any mineral with something more accurate than C-14?

And if you understand paleontology at all, fossilization occurred usually when remains are buried in sedimentary rocks, and these sedimentary rocks are often the results of weathering of these 3 common minerals, feldspar, mica or quartz.

Any competent paleontologist would know that, you don’t just date the fossils themselves, but the rocks that these fossils were buried with.

So obviously, you would not only date the fossils with you, but the samples of rocks and minerals surrounding the fossils. Dating these samples should verify the age of any fossils.

It is all about verification.

Try looking at the world without keeping your head underground. Try learning instead of making complete fool of yourself.

 

[leroy]

Oh, good grief.

You really don’t understand the concept of testings in science (eg Scientific Method, observation, experiments, verifiable evidence), do you?

Only a very illogical and very ignorant person will keep his or her head bury in the sand. Ignorance must be bliss for you.

You do know scientists test evidences, don’t you?

They do it so they can (A) refute what are false with any statement given or (B) verify any valid statement.

If you were a competent scientist, you would be thorough and rigorously test all findings.

Any paleontologist and geologist would know not to rely on just one method of testings.

Science is all about VERIFICATION, or didn’t they teach you in high school science, Leroy?

When you did physics or chemistry experiment, did you only perform once?

When I did, I remember performing 3 to 4 times, record all measurements, to ensure there were no errors or anomalies. If you were using measuring the current and voltage, it is at least best to measure with two separate multimeters. If they give very different readings, then you would know something is wrong.

What would you dim, Leroy? Would keep using a faulty multimeter? How would you know which device is wrong?

I would measure with 3rd or even 4 multimeters, to find which of the 2 originally multimeters I have been using is giving false data.

That’s how I would verify anything.

Your narrow-minded focus on just using using C-14 only demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Earth science and paleontology.

You do realize that radioactive decay just don’t start and end with carbon 14?

There are a number of radioactive isotopes with longer half-life than C-14.

Potassium-40 isotope used in K-Ar radiometric, have half-life of 1.28 billion years. Why wouldn’t I use this date any mineral with something more accurate than C-14?

And if you understand paleontology at all, fossilization occurred usually when remains are buried in sedimentary rocks, and these sedimentary rocks are often the results of weathering of these 3 common minerals, feldspar, mica or quartz.

Any competent paleontologist would know that, you don’t just date the fossils themselves, but the rocks that these fossils were buried with.

So obviously, you would not only date the fossils with you, but the samples of rocks and minerals surrounding the fossils. Dating these samples should verify the age of any fossils.

It is all about verification.

Try looking at the world without keeping your head underground. Try learning instead of making complete fool of yourself.

You didn’t answer to my question; if one finds a sample (like a bone) with unknown age, how is one supposed to know if the sample is less than 45,000yo? How is one supposed to know if he is supposed to use C14 or some other method?

I am not a YEC, this is an honest question.

And I would add, if one dates a T-Rex fossil with C14, what would happen? Would the sample give a date a few thousand years old?

 

[gnostic]

You didn’t answer to my question; if one finds a sample (like a bone) with unknown age, how is one supposed to know if the sample is less than 45,000yo? How is one supposed to know if he is supposed to use C14 or some other method?

If I remember correctly, there are exchanges of carbon between the Earth’s atmosphere and with plant life and animal life.

Much of the Earth’s atmosphere, particularly between the lower ends of the Stratosphere and upper ends of the Troposphere, are mostly nitrogen. C-14 is created when cosmic rays bombarded the atmosphere, there by converting nitrogen (N-14) into C-14 (meaning the nitrogen will lose one of its proton).

C-14 mixed with oxygen will result in radioactive carbon dioxide. Some of CO2, will settle on the sea, the rest will convert will convert into energy by plants releasing oxygen into atmosphere while the plants will absorbed the carbon (including C-14). This process of converting carbon dioxide into energy is called photosynthesis.

Animals that tends to eat plants, will themselves absorb the C-14. And because animals tends to breath out carbon dioxide, the exchange of carbon between biosphere and life continued.

When either plant or animal died, they will stop exchanging carbons, and the carbon that remained in the body, particularly C-14, it will lose C-14 at known rate, at the rate of decay is half life of 5730 years.

The decay will also cause C-14 convert back to N-14.

I hoped you understand what I am saying above, because between 50,000 and 65,000 the number of C-14, will be too small to measure. That’s why geologists and paleontologists know that anything older than 55,000 years old will not have detectable c-14 to detect, to get a reliable age of the fossils.

If the fossil is older than 100,000 years old, there wouldn’t be enough C-14 to measure the fossil accurately or reliably.

And a dinosaur fossils shouldn’t have any measurable C-14 to detect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And how is someone suppose to know if the rock is over 100,000 years old?

Learning some basic geology, paleontology and alike, might be a good place to start.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You didn’t answer to my question; if one finds a sample (like a bone) with unknown age, how is one supposed to know if the sample is less than 45,000yo? How is one supposed to know if he is supposed to use C14 or some other method?

He has just explained to you that you would use MULTIPLE independent methods for verification purposes. Did you even read the post?

And I would add, if one dates a T-Rex fossil with C14, what would happen? Would the sample give a date a few thousand years old?

It wouldn't match up with the other methods, that's for sure.

 

[gnostic]

Learning some basic geology, paleontology and alike, might be a good place to start.

Yes, that would be helpful.

 

[leroy]

And a dinosaur fossils shouldn’t have any measurable C-14 to detect.

Is there any study that you know of where a bunch of dinosaur fossils where tested and no C14 was found?

Because YEC would be happy to provide examples of dinosaurs with C14 (implying that Dinosaurs are young)

 

[leroy]

He has just explained to you that you would use MULTIPLE independent methods for verification purposes. Did you even read the post?



It wouldn't match up with the other methods, that's for sure.

Really? Can you give an example of a sample that was tested by multiple independent methods?

 

[sooda]

I've recently read Answers in Genesis's "10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth." I'm wondering about some of the following arguments:

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
The third of the ten arguments is that soft tissue (with red blood cells) have been found in dinosaur fossils. How can dinosaurs living 65+ million years ago still have soft tissue?

#4 Faint Sun Paradox
Another argument AiG presents is the faint-sun paradox. Would the sun have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, preventing life from evolving?

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
Also, I've wondered about the carbon-14 found in ancient fossils, etc. Since the half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,700 years, how is it found in fossils dated to be millions of years old?

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
Finally, is the ocean only 1/70th as salty as we would expect if it came into existence naturally 3 billion years ago?

These are the four I wanted to look at. Thanks in advance for the input!

LOLOLLO.. ridiculous.. The Jews have known for 2000 years the stories were didactic literature borrowed from other, older civilizations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Really? Can you give an example of a sample that was tested by multiple independent methods?

All of them.

It's what scientists who know what they are doing, do.

It's also not uncommon to send samples to multiple labs for independent testing, just to see if the multiple results match up.

As the post you apparantly didn't read explained really well: it's all about verification.

With a sample of just 1, there isn't any verification.
You need multiple instances for that.

 

[gnostic]

He has just explained to you that you would use MULTIPLE independent methods for verification purposes. Did you even read the post?

It wouldn't match up with the other methods, that's for sure.

It is like teaching a 3 year old.

 

[gnostic]

I am groot...I am groot...I am groot.

But I don't think leroy is cuter or funnier than groot.

 

[gnostic]

Is there any study that you know of where a bunch of dinosaur fossils where tested and no C14 was found?

Because YEC would be happy to provide examples of dinosaurs with C14 (implying that Dinosaurs are young)

How many times, must I say it, leroy?

Any form of dating of objects, NEEDS TO BE VERIFY!!!

 

[leroy]

All of them.

It's what scientists who know what they are doing, do.

It's also not uncommon to send samples to multiple labs for independent testing, just to see if the multiple results match up.

As the post you apparantly didn't read explained really well: it's all about verification.

With a sample of just 1, there isn't any verification.
You need multiple instances for that.

Well then provide a single example where the sample was tested by multiple independent methods.

 

[leroy]

How many times, must I say it, leroy?

Any form of dating of objects, NEEDS TO BE VERIFY!!!

Ok, then that would imply that each (or at least some) dinosaurs most be dated with C14 to verify that there is no C14 and thus confirming that the sample is older than 45,000 years old right?

Care to provide an example where this verification was done? ……….…or would it be safe to say that dinosaurs are never dated with C14 because we know a priori that dinosaurs are older than 45,000 years old, and therefore dating dinosaurs with C14 would be a waste of time and money?

 

[Jose Fly]

If you find a T-rex you would naturally assume that it is older than 45,000 years and therefore you would never use C14, you would rather use a method that would confirm your “previous knowledge” on how old the bones are supposed to be,

Are you aware that fossils are not bones? If you ever find an actual t-rex bone...well, please let us know.

 

[Polymath257]

You didn’t answer to my question; if one finds a sample (like a bone) with unknown age, how is one supposed to know if the sample is less than 45,000yo? How is one supposed to know if he is supposed to use C14 or some other method?

I am not a YEC, this is an honest question.

And I would add, if one dates a T-Rex fossil with C14, what would happen? Would the sample give a date a few thousand years old?

Well, among other things, by the strata it is in. The order of the strata was determined long before radioactive dating, so their relative ages has been known for quite a while.

Then, when radioactive dating came online, the absolute ages of the strata could be determined by trial and error: try the different methods available and see what the actual age is.

In general, if the amount of daughter isotope is very low, there will likely be measurement errors, suggesting that a method with a longer half-life is to be used to get better accuracy.

And, as always, understanding the mechanisms of the dating method can help to avoid absurdities. For example, clams in deep water don't get all of their carbon from the atmosphere, but instead get some from carbonate rock. Since the rock has been around for much longer, that can give an artificially old age to the shell. Or, for porous rock, the gaseous argon can leak out giving an artificially young age to a rock.

 

[gnostic]

Ok, then that would imply that each (or at least some) dinosaurs most be dated with C14 to verify that there is no C14 and thus confirming that the sample is older than 45,000 years old right?

Yes, no C14, therefore the fossils (of dinosaurs) are older than 45,000 years, that’s you would use other radiometric dating to measure the age of fossil minerals, like K-Ar method or U-Pb.

There are also other types of dating methods, like stratigraphy and chronostratigraphy, one of several types of luminescence datings (eg optically stimulated luminescence or OSL, or thermoluminescence or TL).

Any one of these can verify the measurements of the ages of minerals.

Leroy, I am telling you now, and again, that any evidence discovered, or any experiment performed, or any data observed or measured, MUST BE VERIFIED and tested. You don’t just use one method, without verification.

It isn’t science, if you only take one observation or one measurement. If you have performed test, then you retested again, and again...and as many needed to ensure there are no flukes, no errors, no anomalies.

If each test results are consistent with other previous results, then you know you have done your diligence as scientists by following the requirements of Scientific Method, of verifying your works.

Do you understand what I am saying here?

 

[gnostic]

Care to provide an example where this verification was done? ……….…or would it be safe to say that dinosaurs are never dated with C14 because we know a priori that dinosaurs are older than 45,000 years old, and therefore dating dinosaurs with C14 would be a waste of time and money?

Did you bother to even read TagliatelliMonster‘s reply?

It's also not uncommon to send samples to multiple labs for independent testing, just to see if the multiple results match up.

As the post you apparantly didn't read explained really well: it's all about verification.