• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dirth of mid Jurassic fossils

Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
whirlingmerc said:
First, it hardly make sense that the middle of the Jurassic would have a relative dearth of fossils if the geological interpretation of the age was correct

Second, it hardly makes sense to draw large conclusion from the mid Jurassic such as almost all dinosaurs having feathers as some have done with a paucity of evidence

It appears a great many conclusions are mountains made out of molelhills related to similar in the field of paleontology... but astronomy will make larger conclusions on even less evidence... go figure.
Click to expand...

I guess I will let others try to discuss it with you.
You are right of course about conclusions on scant
evidence being a thing, but have failed to realize that
your topic is yourself.

Your vision of how geology-paleontology is done is
a hallucination. The amount of extremely detailed work
that goes into them-but then, you've never even seen
a research paper, let alone done field or lab work.

As in, not a clue what you are talking about-
something like me watching tv and then
trying to hold forth on football or naval warfare.

I really dont know how you convince even yourself.
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ecco said:
Source?
Click to expand...

I could look it up, but the Phd geologist Steve Austin dated some specific crystals from the eruption. Since he knew why that would fail he was in effect lying. He separated out pyroxene crystals from his source and dated those. The problem is that pyroxene tend to form deeper in the Earth. They have a relatively high melting temperature and are found in the more mafic rock of the upper mantle. Moving magma will pick up material just as a moving stream picks up and varies sediment. The obvious answer is that these were xenocrysts, crystals that were already solid and picked up by the lava. Here is an ICR article where he describes what he did:

Geologic catastrophe and the young earth - creation.com

I do believe this is the second time he dated Mt. Saint Helens. The first time he used whole rock dating which would have been thrown off by the old minerals in the rock. This second time he dated what he had to know we're the older minerals that made his previous work fail.

This is beyond incompetence. Even an undergraduate would not make such a boneheaded mistake as his first attempt. To purposefully date the older minerals tells us that he was lying and he knew it.

Edit: And not "very old". Even the pyroxene he dated was only about eleven million years old.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
Subduction Zone said:
I could look it up, but the Phd geologist Steve Austin dated some specific crystals from the eruption. Since he knew why that would fail he was in effect lying. He separated out pyroxene crystals from his source and dated those. The problem is that pyroxene tend to form deeper in the Earth. They have a relatively high melting temperature and are found in the more mafic rock of the upper mantle. Moving magma will pick up material just as a moving stream picks up and varies sediment. The obvious answer is that these were xenocrysts, crystals that were already solid and picked up by the lava. Here is an ICR article where he describes what he did:

Geologic catastrophe and the young earth - creation.com

I do believe this is the second time he dated Mt. Saint Helens. The first time he used whole rock dating which would have been thrown off by the old minerals in the rock. This second time he dated what he had to know we're the older minerals that made his previous work fail.

This is beyond incompetence. Even an undergraduate would not make such a boneheaded mistake as his first attempt. To purposefully date the older minerals tells us that he was lying and he knew it.

Edit: And not "very old". Even the pyroxene he dated was only about eleven million years old.
Click to expand...

You pretty much busted the findings of Phd geologist Steve Austin.

I wonder if that is the person whirlingmerc was referring to when he said:
Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old
​
We'll see. If the only geologists coming to this conclusion are members of ICR, well, that means science disagrees.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ecco said:
You pretty much busted the findings of Phd geologist Steve Austin.

I wonder if that is the person whirlingmerc was referring to when he said:
Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old
​
We'll see. If the only geologists coming to this conclusion are members of ICR, well, that means science disagrees.
Click to expand...
If he had submitted his work for peer review it would have been instantly rejected. It seems that he does not even try any longer. If one really wanted a date one would date the youngest part of the rock, which would have been the matrix. One does not care the oldest part of it.

And it just goes to show, any tool can be abused. He probably got the idea from geologists that have purposefully dated xenocrysts in an attempt to understand the history of a rock. The matrix of those rocks are usually dated as well. But of course a date of "zero" for the matrix does no good for his narrative. Austin had to know that creationists would misinterpret his findings.
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
If he had submitted his work for peer review it would have been instantly rejected. It seems that he does not even try any longer. If one really wanted a date one would date the youngest part of the rock, which would have been the matrix. One does not care the oldest part of it.

And it just goes to show, any tool can be abused. He probably got the idea from geologists that have purposefully dated xenocrysts in an attempt to understand the history of a rock. The matrix of those rocks are usually dated as well. But of course a date of "zero" for the matrix does no good for his narrative. Austin had to know that creationists would misinterpret his findings.
Click to expand...

Hmm instantly rejected... without consideration?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
whirlingmerc said:
Hmm instantly rejected... without consideration?
Click to expand...
You didn't pay attention. The error is so gross that hardly any consideration would be needed.

Quick example. There is a homebuilder that makes houses often using antique hardware. A con artist tries to sell the house as an antique because it has some old parts. Did he lie, even though to anyone that knew anything about houses it is obvious that they are new?
 
W

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Oops, flipped some numbers in my head, but yes, the rock was rather young. It was simply not as old as the pyroxenes.
Click to expand...

Go with less

If laid down catastrophically the whole Jurassic as well as the other layers Cambrian and up in a catastrophic flood would represent about a year

One big event in a relatively short time would explain things like the white cliffs of dover much better than long ages or schools of whales fossilized in south america
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
whirlingmerc said:
If laid down catastrophically the whole Jurassic as well as the other layers Cambrian and up in a catastrophic flood would represented about a year
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if wishes was fishes, we'd all eat pie.

There are so many ways to show that your "if"
is as wrong as mine!

Why persisteth thou in this nonsense?
 
Astrophile

Astrophile

Active Member
whirlingmerc said:
Other problematic radiocarbon snafus include contamination by meteors which mathematically caused part of Siberian forests to appear dated 'in the future' due to wrong assumptions
Click to expand...

Can you give me a link to this? I googled on it but didn't find any specific information. Anyway, if the Siberian forests appeared to be dated 'in the future', the 'contamination by meteors' appears to reduce the radiometric age rather than increase it.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
whirlingmerc said:
There are many fossils from the beginning and end, there is a dearth in the middle 54 million years.
Perhaps the time scale claimed is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the denizens of the period all got god and went to heaven
 
Last edited:
sooda

sooda

Veteran Member
whirlingmerc said:
A global dearth of mid Jurassic fossils?

How long was the Jurassic supposed to be and if so why a global dearth in a 54 million year time period

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to
Click to expand...

Middle Jurassic - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Jurassic
Middle Jurassic. It lasted from about 174 to 163 million years ago. Fossil-bearing rocks from the Middle Jurassic are relatively rare, [citation needed] but some important formations include the Forest Marble Formation in England, the Kilmaluag Formation in Scotland, the Daohugou Beds in China, Itat Formation in Russia,...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top