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

[whirlingmerc]

The flood lasted 4 days and was in the Euphrates river basin.

God said there would never again be a flood (a catastrophic mabool ) there were many local floods... there was never again a worldwide flood

 

[Willamena]

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

You wait till it's found.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You wait till it's found.

You know that specimen 10 years ago or so which in Latin meant Darin's Missing Link At Last !!
Well... most scientists think it was just an ancient lemur... guess the missing link is still missing.
see Ida – or Darwinius masillae,

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know that specimen 10 years ago or so which in Latin meant Darin's Missing Link At Last !!
Well... most scientists think it was just an ancient lemur... guess the missing link is still missing.
see Ida – or Darwinius masillae,

First off the term "missing link" is a creationist strawman since we can trace our ancestry back to the point where any creationist will say that the species in question is an "ape". In fact by moving the goal posts to Ida you have admitted that you are not just an ape. You are also a "monkey".

 

[sooda]

God said there would never again be a flood (a catastrophic mabool ) there were many local floods... there was never again a worldwide flood

There was never a global flood. That's a children's story.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God said there would never again be a flood (a catastrophic mabool ) there were many local floods... there was never again a worldwide flood

There never was in the first place! Absolutely did not happen.

There would have been...... EVIDENCE. And not MAGIC.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old WHy the discrepancy they assumption that new lava flow lacks Argon and all comes from radioactive decay post eruption was wrong

To help put a finer point on this, the dates Austin got back were actually somewhat accurate. There were older, umelted rocks in the young rock so what Austin got was an average age of the new and old rock. The only bad assumption was made by Austin when he assumed the rocks he was looking at had gone through a completely melt, an assumption that could have been checked by microscopy.

Cambrian diamonds have so much C14 in them it suggests they are thousands not millions of years old do to the half life of C14.

14C dating can not give a date of millions of years, so you have that wrong to begin with. Even samples with no 14C will be measured as having trace amounts because of error introduced by the equipment and testing methods. This is why 14C dating can only be used out to 50,000 years or so.

Zircons which are the oldest things on earth have so much helium they also would be thousands not millions or billions of years due to the high diffusivity of helium.

Zircons are permeable to helium, so it isn't surprising that helium can move into the crystal in the right environments. It's strange that creationists would criticize real scientists for assuming that what they are measuring can not move in or out of the rocks, and then use a dating method on something that is known to move in and out of rocks. Go figure.

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 and of course living things have been dated with C14 to be 50,000 years old

Notice that they were able to find the source of contamination.

In the end the unknown initial conditions and the unknown conditions since are both serious factors.

Good thing that scientsits can determine these conditions by studying the rocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To help put a finer point on this, the dates Austin got back were actually somewhat accurate. There were older, umelted rocks in the young rock so what Austin got was an average age of the new and old rock. The only bad assumption was made by Austin when he assumed the rocks he was looking at had gone through a completely melt, an assumption that could have been checked by microscopy.



14C dating can not give a date of millions of years, so you have that wrong to begin with. Even samples with no 14C will be measured as having trace amounts because of error introduced by the equipment and testing methods. This is why 14C dating can only be used out to 50,000 years or so.



Zircons are permeable to helium, so it isn't surprising that helium can move into the crystal in the right environments. It's strange that creationists would criticize real scientists for assuming that what they are measuring can not move in or out of the rocks, and then use a dating method on something that is known to move in and out of rocks. Go figure.



Notice that they were able to find the source of contamination.



Good thing that scientsits can determine these conditions by studying the rocks.

The problem with Austin is that he made errors that an undergrad in geology would not make. He knew better. Anyone that has taken any dating course knows that volcanic material often has either xenocrysts (crystals from an older igneous source) or xenoliths (pieces of rock from an older source) . Both will greatly throw off the age of a very young rock.

As to C14, not only is there the possibility of error from the measuring device itself. There can also be contamination for near surface sedimentary sources from ground water and the atmosphere itself. And C14 can also be generated by radioactive decay affecting nitrogen. Think of a reverse process of how C14 is made in the first place.

Lastly the RATE project thought that there was too much Helium in sources that had uranium or thorium in them. They grossly overestimated the permeability of zircon to helium. And that is covered in this article:

RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons

 

[whirlingmerc]

To help put a finer point on this, the dates Austin got back were actually somewhat accurate. There were older, umelted rocks in the young rock so what Austin got was an average age of the new and old rock. The only bad assumption was made by Austin when he assumed the rocks he was looking at had gone through a completely melt, an assumption that could have been checked by microscopy.



14C dating can not give a date of millions of years, so you have that wrong to begin with. Even samples with no 14C will be measured as having trace amounts because of error introduced by the equipment and testing methods. This is why 14C dating can only be used out to 50,000 years or so.



Zircons are permeable to helium, so it isn't surprising that helium can move into the crystal in the right environments. It's strange that creationists would criticize real scientists for assuming that what they are measuring can not move in or out of the rocks, and then use a dating method on something that is known to move in and out of rocks. Go figure.



Notice that they were able to find the source of contamination.



Good thing that scientsits can determine these conditions by studying the rocks.

Dating services usually ask the person paying what age they expect
One would think they would do a blind test not knowing anything about the sample

 

[whirlingmerc]

There never was in the first place! Absolutely did not happen.

There would have been...... EVIDENCE. And not MAGIC.

Plenty of evidence... the white cliffs of Dover... the Giants causeway ... the Grand Canyon all remnants of the flood or the post flood ice age

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plenty of evidence... the white cliffs of Dover... the Giants causeway ... the Grand Canyon all remnants of the flood or the post flood ice age

They are not. Sorry. Just declaring them as evidence for a global flood does not make them evidence for a global flood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dating services usually ask the person paying what age they expect
One would think they would do a blind test not knowing anything about the sample

What is the source supporting this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plenty of evidence... the white cliffs of Dover... the Giants causeway ... the Grand Canyon all remnants of the flood or the post flood ice age

There was no global flood. Clicking your ruby slippers together and repeating global flood over and over is not going to make that a real thing.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There was no global flood. Clicking your ruby slippers together and repeating global flood over and over is not going to make that a real thing.

Sea fossils being found everywhere even on high mountains says otherwise

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but the white cliffs of Dover are not possible with a Young Earth. The same applies to the Giant's Causeway. All your examples are just so stories without any evidence.

But then you cannot afford to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sea fossils being found everywhere even on high mountains says otherwise

Wrong again. A fifth grader might make your claim, but even a middle school level of scientific literacy refutes that claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sea fossils being found everywhere even on high mountains says otherwise

Except that is explained by geological uplift and the fossils everywhere are not the same fossils everywhere. A flood model cannot explain the fact that fossils evidence in different places is different in makeup, structure and age.

I know. I know. You get around the age thing by denying radiometric dating. Creationist denial is not a criteria for determining the validity of scientific tests.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Plenty of evidence....

Wrong.

the white cliffs of Dover....

Nope. Guess again-- you are wrong, here.

the Giants causeway ... .

Even more wrong than Dover. Seriously?

the Grand Canyon .

Oh. My. That is the most wrong of them all! Is that even possible? To be so far beyond "wrong" that it becomes Fractal Wrongness-- no matter how deep you dig, how close you magnify? It remains ... Wrong.

all remnants of the flood or the post flood ice age

Nope. None of what you listed above is post-ice age. Especially not post-flood.

Oh. Dear.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Not so... can appear older if the assumptions used are wrong regarding the initial conditions

Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old WHy the discrepancy they assumption that new lava flow lacks Argon and all comes from radioactive decay post eruption was wrong

CD013.1: K-Ar dating of Mt. St. Helens dacite

In any case the radio carbon dating is problematic. Cambrian diamonds have so much C14 in them it suggests they are thousands not millions of years old do to the half life of C14. Zircons which are the oldest things on earth have so much helium they also would be thousands not millions or billions of years due to the high diffusivity of helium.

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 and of course living things have been dated with C14 to be 50,000 years old

In the end the unknown initial conditions and the unknown conditions since are both serious factors. Ground water variations can cause a geiger counter to click away in a cave some weeks and other weeks not and imaging the confusion of dating the cave rocks in those conditions.

Carbon 14 dating is calibrated against other elements.

CD011.1: Carbon-14 Variability

 

[Wandering Monk]

Actually no... just pointing out the the claims are not consistent with the evidence. Oddly enough the claims of dinosaurs having feathers are often built from this sparse geological area. When I say Jurassic I mean claimed Jurassic strata. I do not agree with the claimed dates.

In Mt St Helens many lavered old looking strata was made over hours days and weeks and not thousand or millions of years, It happened due to rapid processes and clearly observed before and after to be so.

In the Grand Canyon, the coal samples from top to bottom of the strata, have remarkably similar C14 suggesting the whole stack formed in one catastrophic event like the flood of Noah.

CH581.1: Mount St. Helens canyon and the Grand Canyon