Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[AV1611VET]

And they would not date it because they know it would not tell them the age of the sedimentary rock itself, it would only give the age of the little bitty particles that make it up, which could be many different ages.

So there's no such thing as finding a T Rex fossil embedded in stone?

Questions:

If you crush a 3 million year old boulder down to dust, then let it lithify:

1. Is it now a sedimentary rock?
2. If so, how old is the "new" rock?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So there's no such thing as finding a T Rex fossil embedded in stone?

Questions:

If you crush a 3 million year old boulder down to dust, then let it lithify:

1. Is it now a sedimentary rock?
2. If so, how old is the "new" rock?

AV, she's been repeatedly explaining to you how that's not how dating rocks works at all. At this point, it's pretty clear that you're being deliberately obtuse and dishonest about the whole matter. Just stop.

 

[Kylie]

So there's no such thing as finding a T Rex fossil embedded in stone?

Questions:

If you crush a 3 million year old boulder down to dust, then let it lithify:

1. Is it now a sedimentary rock?
2. If so, how old is the "new" rock?

T Rex fossils are found in SEDIMENTARY stone.

Scientists do not date SEDIMENTARY stone because it can lead to inaccurate results.

When a fossil is found in a layer of sedimentary stone, scientists date the layers of IGNEOUS stone above and below it. Then they can figure out, "the fossil must be older than Age X but younger than Age Y."

That is how fossils are dated.

I have been abundantly clear about this multiple times now, and you even have other people explaining to you that I have been clear about this.

If you legitimately do not understand it yet, then you clearly do not know enough about this topic to have a reasonable discussion about it.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, I'm sure the only woman in the world was beautiful. God saw all that He had made and it was very good.

But not good enough to resist the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

[AV1611VET]

But not good enough to resist the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit.

Yes.

Good enough to resist the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit.

 

[Kylie]

@AV1611VET, I hope you understand the point I was making now.

 

[AV1611VET]

@AV1611VET, I hope you understand the point I was making now.

I understand what you're saying.

But I fear you do not understand what I'm saying.

We have T Rex in stone.

Sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic -- it doesn't matter.

It could even be encased in amber, for what it's worth.

The point is:

However old the substance it's encased in shouldn't mean a thing.

Dating fossils by the rocks, and dating the rocks by the fossils is circular logic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I understand what you're saying.

But I fear you do not understand what I'm saying.

We have T Rex in stone.

Sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic -- it doesn't matter.

It could even be encased in amber, for what it's worth.

The point is:

However old the substance it's encased in shouldn't mean a thing.

Dating fossils by the rocks, and dating the rocks by the fossils is circular logic.

Even though I'm sure you've been told that's now how it works at all.

But hey. Don't let that stop you making the same bad claims again and again and again and again and again and again...

 

[Kylie]

I understand what you're saying.

But I fear you do not understand what I'm saying.

We have T Rex in stone.

Sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic -- it doesn't matter.

It could even be encased in amber, for what it's worth.

The point is:

However old the substance it's encased in shouldn't mean a thing.

Dating fossils by the rocks, and dating the rocks by the fossils is circular logic.

I understand what you are saying.

The scientists understand what you are saying.

That's why they don't date things that way.

Scientists know that dating the sedimentary stone will lead to inaccurate results. So they don't do it.

And, by the way, they do not just date the stone by the fossils. They can date the stone by very well understood radioactive decay processes which have been tested and verified many times as accurate. You seem to be ignoring this fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientists know that dating the sedimentary stone will lead to inaccurate results. So they don't do it.

They can date the stone by very well understood radioactive decay processes which have been tested and verified many times as accurate.

Which is it? accurate or inaccurate?

 

[Kylie]

Which is it? accurate or inaccurate?

I have been very clear about this.

Taking a sample and dating it will give accurate results as to the age of the sample.

Dating sedimentary rock is inaccurate because while it will tell you how long the individual particles that make up that rick have existed, it will NOT tell you how long the different particles have been formed into the sedimentary rock.

I have been abundantly clear about this, and I have stated it several times. Others have also mentioned this (see post 642). If you have been unable to comprehend my meaning, I would suggest that your understanding of the English language is not yet sufficient for you to be participating in discussions of this sort.

 

[AV1611VET]

Taking a sample and dating it will give accurate results as to the age of the sample.

This fossil was found in a rock.

The rock didn't exist any later than 4004 BC.

Now -- you want to say that rock is 10 million years old?

Go ahead, I won't dispute it.

You want to say scientists won't date that rock because it will return an inaccurate date?

Go ahead, I won't dispute it.

But if you say that dinosaur lived 10 million years ago, I'll dispute it.

 

[Kylie]

View attachment 355606

This fossil was found in a rock.

Yes it was.

The rock didn't exist any later than 4004 BC.

Yes it did.

Now -- you want to say that rock is 10 million years old?

Go ahead, I won't dispute it.

Actually, since this appears to be an Aurornis xui, I would say it's about 160 million years old.

You want to say scientists won't date that rock because it will return an inaccurate date?

Go ahead, I won't dispute it.

And they won't.

They would date the igneous rock just beneath it, and that would give a limit to the oldest the pictured rock could be. They would date the igneous rock just above it, and that would give a limit to the youngest the pictured rock could be. And so they would know roughly the age at which the pictured rock was formed with the fossil within it, because it must be between the two limits, since the pictured rock was found between the two dated samples of igneous rock.

This is like the fourth or fifth time I've explained this to you.

I would have assumed you'd understand it by now.

But if you say that dinosaur lived 10 million years ago, I'll dispute it.

And now you are abandoning completely the discussion and just going back to the old, "This is what I believe and you can't change my mind" position.

Tell me, is there any reason why we should expect rational discussion with you?

If you want to have a discussion about the validity of radiometric dating methods, then let's actually discuss that.

But your specific religious beliefs do not play a part in that discussion, so please leave them out of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell me, is there any reason why we should expect rational discussion with you?

What criteria would you use to determine my rationality?

Would you know it, if I was being rational?

 

[Kylie]

What criteria would you use to determine my rationality?

Would you know it, if I was being rational?

If you would respond to the points I raise rather than ignoring them and retreating to your default position, that would be a good start.

 

[partinobodycular]

What criteria would you use to determine my rationality?

The criteria for identifying a rational person is extremely simple... they accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

So until you can accept the possibility that your interpretation of the bible might be completely wrong, I'll continue to believe that you're irrational, and therefore not worth listening to.

 

[AV1611VET]

The criteria for identifying a rational person is extremely simple... they accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

So until you can accept the possibility that your interpretation of the bible might be completely wrong, I'll continue to believe that you're irrational, and therefore not worth listening to.

Correct it, if you think it's wrong.

Show me the error of my ways.

Let's see YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

Correct it, if you think it's wrong.

Show me the error of my ways.

Let's see YOUR interpretation of the Bible.

Is there anything that would change your mind?

If not, then I'd say that shows that you aren't open to the idea that you are wrong, and thus are not rational.

 

[truthpls]

When a fossil is found in a layer of sedimentary stone, scientists date the layers of IGNEOUS stone above and below it. Then they can figure out, "the fossil must be older than Age X but younger than Age Y."

You assumed the dating for this was right? Ha

 

[truthpls]

The criteria for identifying a rational person is extremely simple... they accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

Anyone who does that could be wrong. God of course could not be wrong, so what He said is not subject to that criteria is any way shape or form