Evidences given for a young-earth

[sooda]

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)

I was just reading yesterday about a startling breakthru.. It seems that many dinosaurs had irregular horns like modern day antlers.

 

[leroy]

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?

Care to provide a single example of a dinosaur fossil that was dated and verified by multiple independent dating methods?

 

[leroy]

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.

So would it be fare to say that dinosaur fossils are not dated with C14 (scientists don’t even try) because we know a priori that these fossils are older than 45,000 years old?

 

[Polymath257]

So would it be fare to say that dinosaur fossils are not dated with C14 (scientists don’t even try) because we know a priori that these fossils are older than 45,000 years old?

Typically, the strata are dated, not the individual fossils. Since the fossils are in the rock of some stratum, you get the age of the fossil from the age of the stratum. And the strata are dated using a variety of different techniques, especially for the more important formations (like Hell Creek).

I wouldn't expect C14 dating to be used on a fossil because there would not be much carbon in the fossil at all. That is what it means to be fossilized: the organic material has been replaced by minerals. So that alone negates the possibility of using C14. We wouldn't date even recent pottery by C14 for this reason (although if there are organic remains we can date those).

So, we can date the strata. The fossils are in the strata and are dated by that fact. Individual fossils tend not to be dated because doing so can be destructive of the fossil, and fossils tend not to have carbon so C14 dating isn't even appropriate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

yes. There is no reason to re-invent the wheel either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

"all of them"

Which of these 3 words didn't you understand?

 

[leroy]

"all of them"

Which of these 3 words didn't you understand?

Yea, all of them but you can’t support your assertion. If ALLLLLLLLLLLLL samples are verified by multiple independent methods (as you claim) why can’t you provide a single example of an article describing how a dinosaur fossil was dated by multiple independent methods?

 

[dad]

Typically, the strata are dated, not the individual fossils. Since the fossils are in the rock of some stratum, you get the age of the fossil from the age of the stratum..

Guilt by association.

 

[dad]

Yea, all of them but you can’t support your assertion. If ALLLLLLLLLLLLL samples are verified by multiple independent methods (as you claim) why can’t you provide a single example of an article describing how a dinosaur fossil was dated by multiple independent methods?

Seems like a reasonable question.

 

[gnostic]

Care to provide a single example of a dinosaur fossil that was dated and verified by multiple independent dating methods?

Look up the Hell Creek Formation.

This formation referred to strata relating to the very late stage of the Cretaceous period in Montana, in both North and South Dakota, and even in Wyoming.

Hell Creek Formation is pretty famous because of the abundance of fossils found in these region, including large quantities of dinosaur fossils dated to Maastrichtian age, the youngest age of the Late Cretaceous epoch.

As I have told you dating rocks, minerals or fossils often used a number of dating methods, other than radiometric dating (measuring specific radioactive isotopes, eg lead, potassium, uranium, carbon, etc), which include various luminescence dating techniques, and stratigraphy.

Before the discovery of application of radiometric methods, the usual method was using stratigraphy, which studying layers of rock formation, be these rock be igneous (rocks formed from volcanic activities) or sedimentary rocks (rocks that formed from sediments of weathering of igneous rocks that have been deposited and hardened over time.

You would find fossils in sedimentary rocks, not igneous, because lava tends to destroy bones from heat and pressure.

Anyway there are numbers of specific techniques used in stratigraphy, including the studying changes in magnetic fields, from one layer to other layers. This technique is called magnetostratigraphy. It was used in Hell Creek Formation.

Because the Maastrichtian age was the last age before the Cretaceous-Paleogene Extinction Event (KPg), evidence show a thin layer of iridium deposit that marked the boundary between the lower Cretaceous stratum and the upper Paleogene stratum.

A question that you might ask me: “Why is iridium deposit is important?”

It is important because we can date when massive extinction event occurred (66 million years ago), and it provide validity that the extinction was caused, when the Earth was hit by either a large comet or asteroid.

Iridium are very rare metal to find naturally on Earth, and they are more abundantly found in comets and asteroids. The impact would have spread debris of iridium in wide regions.

This impact occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, a large crater called Chicxulub crater. This KPg boundary with the layer of iridium would be buried under sedimentary deposits of the Paleocene epoch (the first epoch of the Paleogene period).

Since all dinosaurs of the Mesozoic era (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous) are found below the KPg line, then fossils found of any dinosaurs would be older than 66 million years old.

I think I am giving you too info for you to process, but if you want to talk about dinosaurs, then there is no possible way that I can keep it brief.

Also you need to understand that, not only I am not a biologist, I am also not a paleontologist or geologist. I did study one semester of geology, but it was for civil engineering, not for stratigraphy or paleontology. They didn’t teach me radiometric dating or what to do with fossils, because it was part of my subject and course.

Anyway, I would suggest you ask someone else, or to look up Hell Creek Formation, because of discovery of the rich fossils of dinosaurs and other animals.

 

[dad]

Anyway there are numbers of specific techniques used in stratigraphy, including the studying changes in magnetic fields, from one layer to other layers. This technique is called magnetostratigraphy. It was used in Hell Creek Formation..

Your theory would be up the creek with no paddle if there were rapid magnetic reversals at one time.

 

[gnostic]

Your theory would be up the creek with no paddle if there were rapid magnetic reversals at one time.

What part of measuring that you don’t understand that are required in observation of evidence.

You still don’t understand concept of “scientific evidence”.

The most essential requirement for scientific evidence, is observation.

Observation doesn’t just mean “seeing”. Sometimes you cannot see something but you can some device that can detect a phenomena.

For instance, I cannot see electricity running through wire or through some circuitry, using device like a multimeter. The multimeter not only detect electricity, but also provide me some information, like measurements.

Measurement like electric current, voltage, power, or measure the resistance of electrical components (eg resistors, capacitors, transistors). And if you are using AC electricity on appliances, devices, machines, etc, you can measure the wavelengths, frequencies, power oscillation, etc.

Scientific evidence must meet the following requirements:

• been able to observe or detect a phenomena,
• as well as to measure,
• to quantify,
• to test,
• to compare,
• to verify

If you can do any combination of the following, then you have verifiable scientific evidences.

Evidence and experiments are both forms of observation, and they are ways to test any falsifiable hypothesis or any accepted theory.

If you can measure the magnetic field of the rocks, that demonstrably show the polarization of the rocks, then we know which layers of rocks are pointing.

Everything about science is about testing any explanation, whether it is true (ie to verify) or false (ie to refute or debunk).

That the problems with religions of theism, you cannot observe, test or measure God or gods, angels, demons or jinns, spirits or soul, you cannot observe, test or measure heaven or hell, miracles, or the afterlife (resurrection or reincarnation).

How do you know that Adam lived to the age of 930?

Can serpent or donkey talk in human language?

That you believe the Bible to be true, in every sense of the word, and yet not once you, were you able to present evidence of anything in the Bible being true.

Lately, you have been saying that the world was different, before the Flood, and yet you have not show single evidence that your claim is true.

You make extraordinary and downright ridiculous claims, but you don’t provide any evidence; instead you do one of the following things:

• you will ignore the request for evidence,
• you run away and make the same stupid claims later,
• or you try to shift the burden of proof upon everyone else.

Try learning science, instead of making up your own warped version of science, because you will reinforced people‘s of your ignorance dishonesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yea, all of them but you can’t support your assertion. If ALLLLLLLLLLLLL samples are verified by multiple independent methods (as you claim) why can’t you provide a single example of an article describing how a dinosaur fossil was dated by multiple independent methods?

It's standard scientific practice, dude.
You double check your results. And "double checking" doesn't mean "reading the outcome twice". It means repeating your test using different instruments, methods, labs,... whatever is appropriate for the thing you are testing. As several people have explained to you know.

I'm sorry that you are so scientifically illiterate that you don't know or realise this. Don't expect me to educate you on how scientific tests are done. Inform yourself and do your own homework.

 

[leroy]

It's standard scientific practice, dude.
You double check your results. And "double checking" doesn't mean "reading the outcome twice". It means repeating your test using different instruments, methods, labs,... whatever is appropriate for the thing you are testing. As several people have explained to you know.

I'm sorry that you are so scientifically illiterate that you don't know or realise this. Don't expect me to educate you on how scientific tests are done. Inform yourself and do your own homework.

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.

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”

Only in a minority of cases the fossil (or the rocks) are dated with radiometric dating, out of that minority only a few of them are doubled checked with an other method, and when they do “double check” they usually don’t use 2 independent methods but rather another version of the same method.

There are few if any cases where the samples are truly dated by multiple independent methods, and when they happen to do it, they tend to get messy results.

This is why you and your atheists friends are unable to find a single example of a dinosaur fossil that has been dated by multiple independent methods.

The challenge is still there, provide a single article where the author describes how the age of a dinosaur fossils was doubled checked by 2 independent methods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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”

Only in a minority of cases the fossil (or the rocks) are dated with radiometric dating, out of that minority only a few of them are doubled checked with an other method, and when they do “double check” they usually don’t use 2 independent methods but rather another version of the same method.

There are few if any cases where the samples are truly dated by multiple independent methods, and when they happen to do it, they tend to get messy results.

This is why you and your atheists friends are unable to find a single example of a dinosaur fossil that has been dated by multiple independent methods.

The challenge is still there, provide a single article where the author describes how the age of a dinosaur fossils was doubled checked by 2 independent methods.

I see that you do not understand dating. To understand dating you should understand that there are two different types of dating in geology. There is relative dating and absolute dating. They are both easy to understand.

Let's go over relative dating first. That is simply sorting strata by their relative ages. One thing that was found early in the history of geology was that certain fossils are found in specific layers. We for example do not find any Cenozoic trilobites. There are some fossils that are widespread but found only in a well defined range of strata. Those are called "index fossils". By looking at a stratum and identifying all of its index fossils that relative age of the stratum can be quite accurately placed. Does this make sense to you? One cannot easily slip a younger stratum underneath an older stratum.

 

[dad]

What part of measuring that you don’t understand that are required in observation of evidence.

I understand well the reasons science claims that magnetic reversals involve great time. The reasons are truly beliefs only.

The most essential requirement for scientific evidence, is observation.

There are and can be no observations of nature in the far past here. In lieu of observations, what do you have??

Observation doesn’t just mean “seeing”. Sometimes you cannot see something but you can some device that can detect a phenomena.

For instance, I cannot see electricity running through wire or through some circuitry, using device like a multimeter. The multimeter not only detect electricity, but also provide me some information, like measurements.

That has no connection to the far past. What you do is measure nature today and superimpose or project or extrapolate that into the unknown past on earth.

Scientific evidence must meet the following requirements:

• been able to observe or detect a phenomena,
• as well as to measure,
• to quantify,
• to test,
• to compare,
• to verify

Then you have no scientific evidence whatsoever by your own admission, as none of those things can be done for the past.

If you can do any combination of the following, then you have verifiable scientific evidences.

Since you can't, then, you don't. Thanks for that!

Evidence and experiments are both forms of observation, and they are ways to test any falsifiable hypothesis or any accepted theory.

Not if you mean observing and experimenting here and now in this nature and then trying to apply that to the unknown past.

If you can measure the magnetic field of the rocks, that demonstrably show the polarization of the rocks, then we know which layers of rocks are pointing.

Right. And so the question is why and how and when did the polarizing happen? One assumes that in any real change of nature (not change IN nature) the magnetic field would be in flux.

That the problems with religions of theism, you cannot observe, test or measure God or gods, angels, demons or jinns, spirits or soul, you cannot observe, test or measure heaven or hell, miracles, or the afterlife (resurrection or reincarnation).

God is measured and tested and proven in our lives when we do as He said and ask. Again your inability to see that changes nothing.

How do you know that Adam lived to the age of 930?

Can serpent or donkey talk in human language?

I would suspect that Adam had great ability to understand creatures, and before the fall of man true communication was possible and natural. Likewise, in that former nature (after the fall) man lived many many centuries.

Lately, you have been saying that the world was different, before the Flood, and yet you have not show single evidence that your claim is true.

There is and can be no scientific evidence, so don't confuse evidence with scientific evidence! Silence is out of the loop.

 

[sooda]

Seems like a reasonable question.

Have you ever taken a geology course?

Dating Fossils – How Are Fossils Dated? - FossilEra.com
https://www.fossilera.com/pages/dating-fossils
Relative Dating. Sometimes multiple index fossils can be used. In a hypothetical example, a rock formation contains fossils of a type of brachiopod known to occur between 410 and 420 million years. The same rock formation also contains a type of trilobite that was known to live 415 to 425 million years ago.

 

[sooda]

I understand well the reasons science claims that magnetic reversals involve great time. The reasons are truly beliefs only.

There are and can be no observations of nature in the far past here. In lieu of observations, what do you have??

That has no connection to the far past. What you do is measure nature today and superimpose or project or extrapolate that into the unknown past on earth.


Then you have no scientific evidence whatsoever by your own admission, as none of those things can be done for the past.
Since you can't, then, you don't. Thanks for that!


Not if you mean observing and experimenting here and now in this nature and then trying to apply that to the unknown past.
Right. And so the question is why and how and when did the polarizing happen? One assumes that in any real change of nature (not change IN nature) the magnetic field would be in flux.

God is measured and tested and proven in our lives when we do as He said and ask. Again your inability to see that changes nothing.
I would suspect that Adam had great ability to understand creatures, and before the fall of man true communication was possible and natural. Likewise, in that former nature (after the fall) man lived many many centuries.

There is and can be no scientific evidence, so don't confuse evidence with scientific evidence! Silence is out of the loop.

You believe that Genesis is literal?

What faith teaches that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand well the reasons science claims that magnetic reversals involve great time. The reasons are truly beliefs only.

dad, once again mere belief is what you have. Magnetic reversals are not used by themselves to date igneous rocks. They allow us to date at a distance. Guess how they know how to use magnetic reversals to date the sea floor. I bet you can't.

There are and can be no observations of nature in the far past here. In lieu of observations, what do you have??

That has no connection to the far past. What you do is measure nature today and superimpose or project or extrapolate that into the unknown past on earth.

Oh my, dad puts himself in a fishbowl again and says that detectives cannot solve crimes!

Then you have no scientific evidence whatsoever by your own admission, as none of those things can be done for the past.
Since you can't, then, you don't. Thanks for that!

You do not understand the concept of scientific evidence and refuse to learn. So um ... No.

Not if you mean observing and experimenting here and now in this nature and then trying to apply that to the unknown past.
Right. And so the question is why and how and when did the polarizing happen? One assumes that in any real change of nature (not change IN nature) the magnetic field would be in flux.

Nope, no "assuming" at least not as you used that term. You ran away when I offered to post an article that shows evidence for a "same state past", you ran away when I asked if you thought that you could understand it.

God is measured and tested and proven in our lives when we do as He said and ask. Again your inability to see that changes nothing.
I would suspect that Adam had great ability to understand creatures, and before the fall of man true communication was possible and natural. Likewise, in that former nature (after the fall) man lived many many centuries.

No, that is called confirmation bias. You can prove it yourself, What reasonable test would refute God? If you can't think of one you do not have any reliable evidence for your God.

There is and can be no scientific evidence, so don't confuse evidence with scientific evidence! Silence is out of the loop.

Again you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[leroy]

I see that you do not understand dating. To understand dating you should understand that there are two different types of dating in geology. There is relative dating and absolute dating. They are both easy to understand.

Let's go over relative dating first. That is simply sorting strata by their relative ages. One thing that was found early in the history of geology was that certain fossils are found in specific layers. We for example do not find any Cenozoic trilobites. There are some fossils that are widespread but found only in a well defined range of strata. Those are called "index fossils". By looking at a stratum and identifying all of its index fossils that relative age of the stratum can be quite accurately placed. Does this make sense to you? One cannot easily slip a younger stratum underneath an older stratum.

I see that you do not understand dating. To understand dating you should understand that there are two different types of dating in geology. There is relative dating and absolute dating. They are both easy to understand.

Let's go over relative dating first. That is simply sorting strata by their relative ages. One thing that was found early in the history of geology was that certain fossils are found in specific layers. We for example do not find any Cenozoic trilobites. There are some fossils that are widespread but found only in a well defined range of strata. Those are called "index fossils". By looking at a stratum and identifying all of its index fossils that relative age of the stratum can be quite accurately placed. Does this make sense to you? One cannot easily slip a younger stratum underneath an older stratum.

Interesting, but irrelevant, I am challenging the claim that dinosaur fossils (or the fossils around) are always dated by multiple independent methods for verification, so far none of you have been capable of providing a single example where this was done.