Updating The Theory of the Earth

[amanuensis63]

One of the findings that keeps my hope alive is the carbon dating of not only dinosaur soft-tissue, but lots of other stuff, like coal. I realize that mainstream geologists tend to sneer at this, saying there have to be errors, and I know that sometimes people identifying themselves as creationists have done sloppy or even fraudulent work (mainstream scientists occasionally do that to, even famous ones like Mendel). But just as you probably give mainstream scientists the benefit of the doubt, I tend to do the same for creationist scientists.

I realize I'm stepping in without a lot of background as to your critiques but generally speaking a couple important points (others have probably already made these).

When dating something it is important to use a radiometric couple that is appropriate to the age. So if you do a measurement and the amount of daughter product or parent isotope is too low to be in the "detection limit" of the mass spectrometer you can't really rely on the data. This means that certain isotopic systems can't really be used for certain ages. So for instance, using 14-C to measure the age of something that is many millions of years old would probably not be appropriate. Even if one could generate a number.

A good example of how this technique has been abused by a Creationist scientist is the dating of the Mt. St. Helens Dacite by Steve Austin. Apparently Austin sent his samples to a lab that noted the detection limit of the instrumentation and his data fell outside of that stated range making his results meaningless. But you will still see Creationists take this measurement as a proof that radiometric dating has serious problems.

The only "problem" is that a Creationist wanted to misapply a system and regardless of proper lab techniques he abused the data and presented it as valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

While I think the chronological order of the super volcanoes and meteoric impacts is correct, I still have reservations about the number of years, because I have been assured there are many other dating methods supporting a young earth.

First off, you seem like a very nice and honest person. Please don't take anything I say as describing you.

Being a nice person, you have trust in fellow Christians. The problem is that you have unwittingly put your trust in untrustworthy Christians. Professional creationists completely misrepresent the facts.

This creates an interesting situation. If Christians can be seen lying about easily checked facts, why should they be trusted when it comes to their witnessing, testimony, or what they say about God? I would think on that if I were you. Luckily, the majority of Christians are not creationists, so the damage has been mitigated.

Also I believe that a change in the c14/c12 ratio some 5000 years ago actual (not c14 dated) time is a viable hypothesis,

Then why don't we see it on this graph?

If there was a sudden change in the decay or production of 14C, then it should be represented by a sudden change in the direction of the thicker blue line. It isn't there.

and I suspect a similar modification to Ur/Pb and other long age radiometric dating may also be viable.

How?

Do you understand that the changes needed to the fundamental forces of nature in order for radiometric dating to be wrong would make life impossible? You are talking about changes to basic chemistry, first of all. In order for a zircon to include Pb during formation you have to change the electroweak force which means that every chemical reaction in your body would produce something completely different. Second, you are talking about changing nuclear forces which would stop the sun, either in an explosion or in a collapse.

One of the findings that keeps my hope alive is the carbon dating of not only dinosaur soft-tissue,

What dating of dinosaur soft tissue?

but lots of other stuff, like coal.

Would this be the coal that absorbs atmospheric CO2, and has ample uranium in it causing in situ production of 14C?

I realize that mainstream geologists tend to sneer at this, saying there have to be errors, and I know that sometimes people identifying themselves as creationists have done sloppy or even fraudulent work (mainstream scientists occasionally do that to, even famous ones like Mendel). But just as you probably give mainstream scientists the benefit of the doubt, I tend to do the same for creationist scientists.

Professional creationists start with the conclusion and then lie about the facts. They don't deserve any benefit.

 

[loveofourlord]

I am 71 now, but after reading your reply I feel stimulated like I was back in college. Thank you for the challenge.

Let me respond point by point:

1. I have read what Libby said when he first developed carbon dating and he acknowledged the assumptions he was making and even expressed doubt in the constancy of the c12/c14 ratio. I respect his work and am not stating that radiometric dating is wrong, only that it depends on the assumptions made, and there is good reason to question the assumptions. Darwin's friend and mentor, Lyell, was a uniformitarian, believing that catastrophic events, such as the great flood, were implausible. Darwin thought so too. Mainstream geology from 1830 on has been built on uniformitarianism, which assumes processes happening today can be assumed to be extrapolated indefinitely into the distant past. But Now with the Yucatan crater, evidence of super volcanoes, and even flood evidence in eastern Washington, we know there have been catastrophic events in the past that we don't have written historical record of

2. I am aware that the mainstream geologic method for dating events in millions of years does not use carbon dating. Are you aware of the faith required to use the dating methods developed in the last 50 years, and the physical observations of maybe the last 200 years, to extrapolate those observations back in time to billions of years? My faith pales in comparison.

3. I am not in favor of ignoring evidence. There are seaborne fossils on the top of the Andes. There are stories of global flood disasters from cultures all around the world. There is evidence in eastern Washington of erosion from a truly massive flood. There are clusters of shelter-skelter fossils thrown together as if by some catastrophe. And much more. I want to consider rather than ignore evidence.

4. I am not in favor of random assignment of extinction events. I have read the National Geographic articles on five major extinction events, and tried to assign them as reasonably as I could, considering the myths and legends of the Jews, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Indians, the Canaanites, the Sumerians, the various theories of many different creationists, one Jewish astrophysicist, Velikovsky, and many others. I have been doing this off and on for 24 years.

5. I would advise you to be careful of dismissing completely what may seem a myth to you. They thought the Trojan war was a myth until the amateur Schliemann dug up Troy in the 1800s. Many think Sodom being destroyed around 2000 BC (from Genesis in the Bible) was a myth. Last year I went to Tell Al Hamman in Jordan to help dig up its ancient site, where there is an early Bronze Age ash layer of destruction and some trinitite as evidence of a possible air burst.

So what would you like to say now?

yes we know of many various disasters, none of wich fit the concept of the biblical flood.

As for carbon dating we have many ways to cross reference it, we have tree ring data, that we can tell a tree is X years old by counting the rings, then carbon date the rings and find a corelation, and this will fit across the world, a tree thats 3000 years old in north america and carbon dates to being 'born' *what is the right name?* 3000 years ago, will corelate to a tree found in africa, or europe or asia that is the same age and both will independantly date to the same time and can be carbondated to being born or what ever at the same time, if the system wasn't working how could we get the same data from multiple sources? This is just with trees, add in ice data, and other thigns.

 

[loveofourlord]

Are you claiming that we assume the c12/c14 ratio? Because it's not an assumption. It's a measurement.



Let's not make the mistake of confusing catastrophism with a counterpoint to uniformitarianism, eh? Uniformitarianism is based on, well, every measurement we have to date. We don't have a method for significantly altering radioactive decay rates. We're not aware of any way to change the speed of light in a vacuum. We're not aware of any way to alter G, or C, or any other other universal constants, and through all our experimenting, they have remained constant. So what reason should we have to suspect that they can change, let alone that they have in the past?

I posit that were you not a bible-believing Christian, you would not even begin to make these assumptions. They are made not out of scientific inquiry but out of necessity to defend a dogmatic belief.



I am not; would you care to present what is being assumed?



And yet, for some reason, most people seem to think that this is best explained by plate tectonics. Mostly because the fossils go through the mountains, rather than just on the uppermost layers.



Why do we never find a Homo Sapiens fossil anywhere below the K/T boundary? Why do we never observe dinosaur fossils above the K/T boundary? A massive global flood simply does not account for the fossils we find in any meaningful way.




Have you tried, rather than appealing to myths and legends which most think are entirely reasonable to reject wholesale as completely baseless, it might be better to appeal to the actual scientific evidence surrounding these events? You seem to accept that there were 5 extinction events, but not accept any of the evidence that leads to them in the first place.



And yet... Zeus is not responsible for thunder. Neither is Thor. The gods don't live on a tall mountain. There never was a global flood. Animals can't talk. There is no "world tree" that supports the world. Seriously, mythology is essentially a shot in the dark when talking about history and a shot in the dark in an entirely different postal code when talking about science.

Also there are not seashells found ontop of mountains, they are rocks in the shape of seashells and such, how do you get seashells and other water animals turned into solid stone? I had a rock like this myself, it was just the shape of seashells and things on the surface of the rock, but the cross section just showed normal rocks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you understand that the changes needed to the fundamental forces of nature in order for radiometric dating to be wrong would make life impossible? You are talking about changes to basic chemistry, first of all. In order for a zircon to include Pb during formation you have to change the electroweak force which means that every chemical reaction in your body would produce something completely different. Second, you are talking about changing nuclear forces which would stop the sun, either in an explosion or in a collapse.

First off cosmic rays produce more C14 than anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
"Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms."

And this fluctuates wildly - betraying the true viability of your doctored graph to match reality.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html

""In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years,..."
...Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now."

Since you have no other source of C14 except nuclear reactors, please explain why your graph does not match with the measurements of it's only possible creation?

And for another thing, radiocarbon dating was based upon Libby's theory which was found to violate parity. Only when the electroweak theory was later revised - while radiometric dating was not, did science move forward. You use the same formulas derived from a theory found to violate parity.

What dating of dinosaur soft tissue?

Just the fact you have it should tell you something - and it isn't the miracle of soft tisue preservation. It is you base your time that in your own theory of the universe - requires you to increase decay rates as you go backwards, yet you fail to do so. Why is this?

Would this be the coal that absorbs atmospheric CO2, and has ample uranium in it causing in situ production of 14C?

In situ minuscule amounts that due to the rarity of uranium deposits amounts to nothing in the overall picture? Instead being merely window dressing????

Professional creationists start with the conclusion and then lie about the facts. They don't deserve any benefit.

Only one lying is the professional evolutionists. Their followers are just misguided. Breed mates with breed and produces a new breed. Asian mates with African producing an Afro-Asian. The Asian stays an Asian, the African stays an African - and a new breed appears suddenly in the record. With no missing links and no mutation by evolution.

So why do all evolutionists refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record?

These: Yes, these. Are merely different breeds of the same species, just as these are. Just as Darwin's Finches are all different breeds of the same species. Evolutionist's have yet to classify anything correctly. From Babies and adults, to man.

Evolutionists have no basis to make any claims of expertise, when they just getting their names in the books - and could care less about the actual science. A few speak out and try to correct, but you'll just ignore them - as usual. Just like you ignore all of Darwin's Finches interbreeding since they arrived on the islands - and they have the nerve to continue to attempt to lie to people and tell them they are separate species hybridizing. Lol - talk about intellectual dishonesty - look to your own ranks first.

 

[ddubois]

When dating something it is important to use a radiometric couple that is appropriate to the age. So if you do a measurement and the amount of daughter product or parent isotope is too low to be in the "detection limit" of the mass spectrometer you can't really rely on the data. This means that certain isotopic systems can't really be used for certain ages. So for instance, using 14-C to measure the age of something that is many millions of years old would probably not be appropriate. Even if one could generate a number.

If something really were many millions of years old, I agree it would not be appropriate to measure its age with C14 dating. However, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils throws the assumption of great age into question, and to me legitimizes the use of C14 dating as a check. When C14 dating, done carefully, in fact produces ages well under 40 thousand years, within the measurement limits of C14 dating, then I think there is a legitimate concern with the millions of years dating.

 

[ddubois]

A good example of how this technique has been abused by a Creationist scientist is the dating of the Mt. St. Helens Dacite by Steve Austin. Apparently Austin sent his samples to a lab that noted the detection limit of the instrumentation and his data fell outside of that stated range making his results meaningless. But you will still see Creationists take this measurement as a proof that radiometric dating has serious problems.

This objection seems more legitimate from my review of the internet pros and cons. It does appear that most but not all of Austin's samples fell below the stated 2 million year minimum detection limit. The limit apparently was to guard against argon contamination from previous tests done by the lab. So while Austin may have a point there was argon when according to mainstream uniformitarian principles there shouldn't have been, contamination seems to me a more viable explanation here than it does with the dinosaur soft tissue dating.

 

[amanuensis63]

If something really were many millions of years old, I agree it would not be appropriate to measure its age with C14 dating. However, the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils throws the assumption of great age into question,

Or it would if such "soft tissue" had been found. In fact the material you refer to as soft tissue was not soft to begin with. It was re-hydrated in the labs after removing the mineral portion of the bone around it. In addition it is unclear if this was original to the dinosaur itself.

And one last thing: dates are not assigned by state of preservation. The dating of the dinosaur bones would be done more accurately by dating the various rocks around them. In the case of many dinosaur bone deposits in the western US there are various ash marker beds that have radiogenic isotopes in them allowing for relatively accurate bounding dates.

and to me legitimizes the use of C14 dating as a check.

And if the values of 14-C fall below the detection limit of the mass spectrometer would you still rely on the data?

What was the value measured on this material and what was the det lim of the MS used to date it?

Without those two pieces of information this discussion is meaningless.

 

[ddubois]

First off, you seem like a very nice and honest person. Please don't take anything I say as describing you.

Being a nice person, you have trust in fellow Christians. The problem is that you have unwittingly put your trust in untrustworthy Christians. Professional creationists completely misrepresent the facts.

This creates an interesting situation. If Christians can be seen lying about easily checked facts, why should they be trusted when it comes to their witnessing, testimony, or what they say about God? I would think on that if I were you. Luckily, the majority of Christians are not creationists, so the damage has been mitigated.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that if Christians who bear false witness should not be trusted once that is discovered. However, a mistake is not a lie. Newton made a mistake when he misidentified a comet. Maxwell made mistakes. So did Einstein. They were not trying to deceive, so they were not lying. In my opinion, neither are the majority of creationist scientists lying, even though they may make many mistakes.

Then why don't we see it on this graph?

If there was a sudden change in the decay or production of 14C, then it should be represented by a sudden change in the direction of the thicker blue line. It isn't there.

The fact that there is a calibration curve is evidence that the c12/c14 ratio changes over time. As I understand it, there are many assumptions, such as that varies, ice cores, and tree rings behave in the past the same way we generally see them behaving now (ignore possibilities of multi-ring years, which can in fact happen), and that the calibration produces for what looks like the last 12,000 years, can be extended into the further past. The details of c14 dating seem very complicated to me, so I may not have all this right, but I am pretty well convinced that c14 dating depends heavily on uniformitarian assumptions, and that the graph you show reflects those assumptions, and not just the data. I believe that if we really knew the c12/c14 ratios over real time, not time based on the assumptions that the ratio didn't change much, the graph would look totally different.


How?

Do you understand that the changes needed to the fundamental forces of nature in order for radiometric dating to be wrong would make life impossible? You are talking about changes to basic chemistry, first of all. In order for a zircon to include Pb during formation you have to change the electroweak force which means that every chemical reaction in your body would produce something completely different. Second, you are talking about changing nuclear forces which would stop the sun, either in an explosion or in a collapse.

Changing the c12/c14 ratio would not making any such changes. In fact, a reduced ratio would imply fewer cosmic rays and a healthier earth, possibly contributing to the much larger flora and fauna we see in the fossils. I have not studied and cannot at this time reply to the arguments you make about electroweak forces, etc., but when I have more time, I will look for a good rebuttal.

What dating of dinosaur soft tissue?



Would this be the coal that absorbs atmospheric CO2, and has ample uranium in it causing in situ production of 14C?



Professional creationists start with the conclusion and then lie about the facts. They don't deserve any benefit.

Most professional biologists after Darwin accepted his macro-evolution as a given. But most people would agree there are still unexplained anomalies -- Even with billions of years, how can human DNA be produced from nothing? Most professional geologists after Charles Lyell (Darwin's mentor) accepted long earth ages as a given based on uniformitarian assumptions ("the present is the key to the past"). But now we have seen evidence of great meteor strikes and super volcanoes, the like of which are not recorded in secular history. So why not a great flood as recorded in the most respected of all volumes of ancient history?

Most scientists from Newton through Maxwell were Christians and many, like Newton, would be called creationists. Because Christians believe in a divine creator does not disqualify them as scientists and does not predispose them to lie about the facts. I see no reason why many modern creationists could not be cut from the same mold as Maxwell, for one.

 

[amanuensis63]

Most professional biologists after Darwin accepted his macro-evolution as a given. But most people would agree there are still unexplained anomalies -- Even with billions of years, how can human DNA be produced from nothing?

Because there is nothing about DNA that defies basic plain old chemistry. The chemical bonds in DNA are normal chemical bonds. They are not special and CAN be made in a testtube. They have to exist in nature, there is nothing magical about the chemistry of DNA.

Most professional geologists after Charles Lyell (Darwin's mentor) accepted long earth ages as a given based on uniformitarian assumptions ("the present is the key to the past"). But now we have seen evidence of great meteor strikes and super volcanoes, the like of which are not recorded in secular history.

Speaking as one with a PhD in geology I can tell you that catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism. In fact catastrophes leave very distinct markings in the rocks that allow us to determine what happened and how.

And remember: uniformitarianism simply states that what we see happening TODAY to make a given structure LIKELY HAPPENED AT THE SAME RATE (fast or slow) IN THE PAST TO MAKE THE SAME STRUCTURE RECORDED IN THE ROCKS.

That's it. Nothing special, nothing requiring anything more than common sense. And those structures are EVERYWHERE.

I can walk down to the beach here in California and I can see in real time structures being made that I can find somewhere else preserved in SOLID ROCK.

So why not a great flood as recorded in the most respected of all volumes of ancient history?

Because there is no evidence for a global flood. None. There is no evidence that a global flood existed.

I see no reason why many modern creationists could not be cut from the same mold as Maxwell, for one.

Yet when you read their science it is riddled with basic flaws and a pre-conceived notion of what the data should say. Like Austin and the Mt. St. Helens dacite. He violated basic lab protocols to arrive at his "conclusion" which, as luck would have it, confirmed his religious preconceptions.

Et viola!

 

[ddubois]

nd if the values of 14-C fall below the detection limit of the mass spectrometer would you still rely on the data?

What was the value measured on this material and what was the det lim of the MS used to date it?

Without those two pieces of information this discussion is meaningless

See #66 in section 4 for my quotation of the pertinent study. I think it is within proper limits and valid. I suspect most invested old earth professionals will have reasons to think otherwise. Any new discovery typically gets challenged by the resident experts. May the Lord give you a word of knowledge and/or of wisdom to discern the truth of this matter. And if He does, please share it with me.

 

[ddubois]

Because there is nothing about DNA that defies basic plain old chemistry. The chemical bonds in DNA are normal chemical bonds. They are not special and CAN be made in a testtube. They have to exist in nature, there is nothing magical about the chemistry of DNA.



Speaking as one with a PhD in geology I can tell you that catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism. In fact catastrophes leave very distinct markings in the rocks that allow us to determine what happened and how.

And remember: uniformitarianism simply states that what we see happening TODAY to make a given structure LIKELY HAPPENED AT THE SAME RATE (fast or slow) IN THE PAST TO MAKE THE SAME STRUCTURE RECORDED IN THE ROCKS.

That's it. Nothing special, nothing requiring anything more than common sense. And those structures are EVERYWHERE.

I can walk down to the beach here in California and I can see in real time structures being made that I can find somewhere else preserved in SOLID ROCK.



Because there is no evidence for a global flood. None. There is no evidence that a global flood existed.



Yet when you read their science it is riddled with basic flaws and a pre-conceived notion of what the data should say. Like Austin and the Mt. St. Helens dacite. He violated basic lab protocols to arrive at his "conclusion" which, as luck would have it, confirmed his religious preconceptions.

Et viola!

1. You talk about being able to create DNA in a test tube -- it is nothing special?! Come on! It enables you to grow from one cell into billions within 20 years in a very organized and effective way. In fact, you are made in God's own image.

And since you are so wonderfully made, you creating DNA in a test tube is a far different than purely random forces doing it. But even if you had all the wonderful genome sequencing now available, and even laying aside the 90%+ of human DNA currently classified as "junk", I don't see how with currently accepted mathematical probabilities and billions of years the small part of coded human DNA could come to pass through random forces. Do you?

2. You say that "catastrophes do not in any way cause significant problems for uniformitarianism." Really? What if a catastrophe markedly increased the percentage of c14 allowed into the atmosphere. Wouldn't the change in c12/c14 ratio cause the apparent age from carbon 14 dating to be greater than it really was? If not, please tell me why not.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

The fallacy that it takes ages to form, that's what fallacy. It doesn't even have to take a day - it just depends on conditions.

A) The oils, gas, and coal deposits are all found in geological settings that document tremendous amounts of geological time, regardless of the amount of time it took to convert the raw organics to fossils. Drilling in ancient ocean basins is how we find oil.

B) The chemistry of the fossil organics demonstrates that even after conversion to petroleum (or coal), further slow chemical processes occurred. Petroleum chemists call this "maturing." At a minimum, the largest hydrocarbon chains break, and the very small molecular fractions escape. The smallest escaped molecules, for example methane (CH4), can be trapped in overlaying rock such as shale. This small molecule escape gas is what we call "natural gas." The most "Mature" petroleum is tar.

C) The oldest ocean basins yield the oldest petroleum. This lacks any plant pollen at all, and is the most "mature" chemically. The next oldest has the fern spores but no plant pollens. Next are petroleum with tree, and grass pollen, but not herbaceous flowering plant pollen.

D) The chemistry of the fossil organics formed under geological conditions- not laboratory conditions- and took a very long time to occur.

E)

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I already have given you an example of mass extinction events that are well ordered, and very far apart in the order of hundreds of millions of years. Here is a fine grain study of 'just' the last 56,000 years that "creation scientists" cannot accommodate. The temperature data at the bottom are from oxygen isotope ratios from trapped gas bubbles in Greenland ice caps. The annual dates are based on a combination of direct ice layer counting, and C14 dates. The article is not publicly available until next January, so I included the caption to the figure.

"Abrupt warming events drove Late Pleistocene Holarctic megafaunal turnover"
Alan Cooper et al, Science 7 August 2015: Vol. 349 no. 6248 pp. 602-606

Fig. 1 Megafaunal transition events and Late Pleistocene climate records.

Major megafaunal transition events (region wide extirpations or global extinctions, or invasions, of species or major clades) identified in Late Pleistocene Holarctic megafaunal data sets through aDNA or paleontological studies, plotted on a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere climate from the GICC05 δ18O record (black wiggle curve). GICC05 interstadial warming events are shown with light gray boxes. There is an apparent absence of megafaunal events during the LGM (blue) and, to a lesser extent, the cold Younger Dryas stadial (YD) and a marked association with interstadials. Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates (red bar ± 2 SD, using Phase calibration in OxCal 4.1) calibrated by using the dendrodated IntCal <12,500-year data set (36) and Cariaco Basin (Hulu Cave) data set for older ages (28, 33), or GRIWM-based estimates of ghost ranges (black bar, 95% confidence interval) are given for each event (20). Eurasian taxa are shown in blue and New World in black, with animals facing right representing extinctions and those facing left representing invasions (.Inv). The chronologically revised Greenland record, developed by combining the Cariaco Basin and Greenland ice core records, is also shown (dark gray wiggle curve) for the period >11.5 ka (because it is identical with GICC05 until this point) (20). Light pink bars (below) represent the error margins (1 SD) for the estimated onset of GI events in the published GICC05 chronology (19, 20). Heinrich events (Hx) are shown with marine isotope stages (MISx) in light gray at top (41). NEA-GS-3b was identified via Atlantic marine sediment cores and radiocarbon dating (42). Calibrated radiocarbon ages (midpoints without laboratory dating errors) from mammoth remains in Eurasia (black circles) and New World (crosses) are plotted across the bottom of the figure to demonstrate the lack of obvious taphonomic hiatus during the time period analyzed (20). The approximate timing of the first presence of modern humans in North America (New World) and Europe are shown as vertical gray dashed lines. Abbreviated taxonomic names, with geographic area appended where necessary, are given: Arctodus.Ber (Arctodus simus East Beringia); Bison.pri (Bison priscus Europe); Bison.x (Bison n. sp. Europe); Cervus.ela (Cervus elephas New World); Coelod.ant.Bri (Coelodonta antiquitatis Britain); Coelod.ant.Rus (C. antiquitatis Russia); Coelodonta.ant.Wra (C. antiquitatis Wrangel Island); Croc.croc (Crocuta crocuta spelaea Europe); Equus.cab (Equus caballus East Beringia); Equus.fra (E. francisci East Beringia); Homo.nea (Homo neanderthalensis Europe); Mammuth.pri (Mammuthus primigenius); Mammut.ame (Mammut americanum); Megaloceros.gig (Megaloceros giganteus Western Europe); Ovibos.mos (Ovibos moschatus Beringia); Palaeolox.nau (Palaeoloxodon naumanni Japan); Panth.leo.Ber (Panthera leo spelaea Beringia); Panth.leo.spe (P. leo spelaea Eurasia); Saiga.tat (Saiga tatarica Eurasia); Ursus.arc (Ursus arctos East Beringia); Ursus.spe1 and 2 (U. spelaea Germany); Ursus.spe.Eur (U. spelaea Europe). [Further details of the geographic region and nature of each megafaunal event are presented in tables S1 and S2.]

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

And for another thing, radiocarbon dating was based upon Libby's theory which was found to violate parity. Only when the electroweak theory was later revised - while radiometric dating was not, did science move forward. You use the same formulas derived from a theory found to violate parity.

I ordinarily try to stay with the actual reviewed science journals. But this one is behind a paywall, and will not be available.
I hope that "Justatruthseeker" will try to live up to his nickname.

"Most precise test of Lorentz symmetry for the photon finds that the speed of light is indeed constant"

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I ordinarily try to stay with the actual reviewed science journals. But this one is behind a paywall, and will not be available.
I hope that "Justatruthseeker" will try to live up to his nickname.

"Most precise test of Lorentz symmetry for the photon finds that the speed of light is indeed constant"

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

You still haven't justified your reasons for ignoring the postulates of your own theory regarding acceleration in a universe they claim is continuing to accelerate?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597895

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597857

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597950

You still have not adjusted your clocks for an increased decay rate the further you go back in time.

No one is disputing the constant speed of light proportional to energy content of the devices measuring it. Under acceleration your rulers shrink - you measure more distance to the same object (Twin B at the tip of the second hand - versus Twin A near the Hub). Your clock ticks slower - You travel a greater distance in what is now called a second (Twin B at the tip of the second hand - versus Twin A near the Hub). You measure a proportional distance and time based upon energy of the system being measured. It is constant because you now measure a new distance and new elapsed time for the speed of light based upon the energy content of the devices measuring it. You call it the same - even when it is your rulers and clocks which have in reality changed - gone unnoticed because you still call a longer elapsed time a second - and a shorter ruler a meter. Unnoticed because everything else sharing that frame of reference has also changed. There is no magic involved - no bending, accelerating, expanding nothing called spacetime - just energy from acceleration.

You are all trying to run from this because you know in the back of your head it's correctness - you just refuse to accept the postulates of Relativity and apply them where they should be applied - to a universe they claim is continuing to increase in acceleration from a velocity faster than light to begin with. Causing dating errors that rise exponentially as one goes backwards in time, trying to calculate faster decay rates with clocks ticking at today's rate. The natural consequence thereof is that things decayed faster in the past - and unless you adjust your clocks and rulers accordingly - all your measurements of age are useless. You know this, but I expect you will now refuse to accept the only logical conclusion because it would destroy your belief system.

I am just curious why all of you refuse to accept the postulates of your own theory of the universe?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

You are all trying to run from this because you know in the back of your head it's correctness - you just refuse to accept the postulates of Relativity and apply them where they should be applied - to a universe they claim is continuing to increase in acceleration from a velocity faster than light to begin with.

I suspected that you were a loon.

The chemical and subatomic reactions used in radiometric dating happen right here on planet Earth. The traces of this evidence are all right here on planet earth.

But, we also can establish without question that the speed of light has been constant for at least the last six billion years.
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

 

[ddubois]

First off cosmic rays produce more C14 than anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
"Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms."

And this fluctuates wildly - betraying the true viability of your doctored graph to match reality.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/ray_surge.html

""In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years,..."
...Hundreds of years ago, cosmic ray fluxes were at least 200% higher than they are now."

I overlooked your support here. Thanks for the encouraging information.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I overlooked your support here. Thanks for the encouraging information.

Can you understand that his 'support' is merely more lies?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You still haven't justified your reasons for ignoring the postulates of your own theory regarding acceleration in a universe they claim is continuing to accelerate?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597895

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597857

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/updating-the-theory-of-the-earth.7901145/page-6#post-68597950

You still have not adjusted your clocks for an increased decay rate the further you go back in time.

No one is disputing the constant speed of light proportional to energy content of the devices measuring it. Under acceleration your rulers shrink - you measure more distance to the same object (Twin B at the tip of the second hand - versus Twin A near the Hub). Your clock ticks slower - You travel a greater distance in what is now called a second (Twin B at the tip of the second hand - versus Twin A near the Hub). You measure a proportional distance and time based upon energy of the system being measured. It is constant because you now measure a new distance and new elapsed time for the speed of light based upon the energy content of the devices measuring it. You call it the same - even when it is your rulers and clocks which have in reality changed - gone unnoticed because you still call a longer elapsed time a second - and a shorter ruler a meter. Unnoticed because everything else sharing that frame of reference has also changed. There is no magic involved - no bending, accelerating, expanding nothing called spacetime - just energy from acceleration.

You are all trying to run from this because you know in the back of your head it's correctness - you just refuse to accept the postulates of Relativity and apply them where they should be applied - to a universe they claim is continuing to increase in acceleration from a velocity faster than light to begin with. Causing dating errors that rise exponentially as one goes backwards in time, trying to calculate faster decay rates with clocks ticking at today's rate. The natural consequence thereof is that things decayed faster in the past - and unless you adjust your clocks and rulers accordingly - all your measurements of age are useless. You know this, but I expect you will now refuse to accept the only logical conclusion because it would destroy your belief system.

I am just curious why all of you refuse to accept the postulates of your own theory of the universe?

(sigh) yet another who thinks he can tell scientists what scientists are really saying instead of what the scientists think they are saying.