Deep Time

[RickG]

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.



Keep in mind that this thread is specific about the science and only the science. Its intent is not to question anyone's religious beliefs or have any discussion pertaining to any religion. Stick to the science and only the science. Citing or posting scripture is off topic for this thread.

 

[Rygaku]

It all falls apart when you cannot find human fossils in Mesozoic layer. That itself is evidence against creation.
The other evidence is well looking at the star light. Considering stars were created on day 11 if creation were true
we shouldn't have star light.

 

[Davian]

 

[SkyWriting]

geologic dating methods

Mainstream science and "creation science" differ considerably with respect to geologic dating methods. The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

OK

How dating methods work - creation.com
creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
Creation Ministries International

Every dating method that scientists use works exactly the same way. ... way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating, Creation 24(4):20–23, 2002.



The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-k...
Creation Ministries International

Jul 31, 2013 - Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? ... and the age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, ...



Radiometric Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
Institute for Creation Research

For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible's record of recent creation. For this ...



Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? | Answers ...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dati...
Answers in Genesis

Oct 4, 2007 - Many accept radiometric dating methods as proof that the earth is millions ... The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the ... that the days of creation ( Genesis 1 ) were literal days and that the earth is ...

 

[SkyWriting]

what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.

More

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/
Tags: Age of Earth, geological dating, Radioactive dating ..... I think one has to work hard to believe that the intelligent design behind even the simplest organism ...

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating ...
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Discussion on the inaccuracies found using the Carbon-14 dating method, and ... Plus evidence for a much younger earth using scientific measurements. ... “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). .... There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of ...

Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old ...
creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/
May 5, 2010 - In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the ... Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. ... dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. ... (Creation Seminar Part #7; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow;

 

[Rygaku]

More

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/
Tags: Age of Earth, geological dating, Radioactive dating ..... I think one has to work hard to believe that the intelligent design behind even the simplest organism ...

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating ...
www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
Discussion on the inaccuracies found using the Carbon-14 dating method, and ... Plus evidence for a much younger earth using scientific measurements. ... “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). .... There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of ...

Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old ...
creationtoday.org/carbon-dating/
May 5, 2010 - In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half-lives the ... Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950s. ... dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. ... (Creation Seminar Part #7; Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow;

There is other dating methods besides radiometric that are more precise.

 

[RickG]

OK

How dating methods work - creation.com
creation.com/how-dating-methods-work
Creation Ministries International

Every dating method that scientists use works exactly the same way. ... way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating, Creation 24(4):20–23, 2002.



The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-k...
Creation Ministries International

Jul 31, 2013 - Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? ... and the age of the Earth, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, ...



Radiometric Dating | The Institute for Creation Research
www.icr.org/creation-radiometric
Institute for Creation Research

For many people, radiometric dating might be the one scientific technique that most blatantly seems to challenge the Bible's record of recent creation. For this ...



Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? | Answers ...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dati...
Answers in Genesis

Oct 4, 2007 - Many accept radiometric dating methods as proof that the earth is millions ... The primary dating method scientists use for determining the age of the ... that the days of creation ( Genesis 1 ) were literal days and that the earth is ...

I didn't ask for a bibliography. Is there a specific dating method you wish to discuss?

 

[-57]

Some strata containing dinosaur fossils are dated at 65+ MY's old. It is presumed that radiometric dating was used to determine those ages.

BUT

Recent discoveries show dinosaur bones can contain preserved blood vessels and soft tissue....which shouldn't be there if the strata the fossils were found in were really that old.

That makes one question the radiometric dating techniques.

 

[RickG]

Some strata containing dinosaur fossils are dated at 65+ MY's old. It is presumed that radiometric dating was used to determine those ages.

BUT

Recent discoveries show dinosaur bones can contain preserved blood vessels and soft tissue....which shouldn't be there if the strata the fossils were found in were really that old.

That makes one question the radiometric dating techniques.

Fossilized not preserved blood vessels. I suggest sourcing the actual published papers rather than the misrepresented claims in the creation science literature. Here is a list of Dr. Schweitzer's published work.

http://naturalsciences.org/staff/mary-schweitzer

Is there a particular dating method you would like to discuss?

 

[-57]

Fossilized not preserved blood vessels. I suggest sourcing the actual published papers rather than the misrepresented claims in the creation science literature. Here is a list of Dr. Schweitzer's published work.

http://naturalsciences.org/staff/mary-schweitzer

Is there a particular dating method you would like to discuss?

Not really.
I just pointed out a major big time flaw with the traditional dating techniques with the discovery of still soft dino tissue.

If your truly interested in some of the flaws with radiometric dating you can visit this site.

 

[RickG]

Not really.
I just pointed out a major big time flaw with the traditional dating techniques with the discovery of still soft dino tissue.

What you pointed out has nothing to do with any dating technique, and nevermind that your claim was false. Again, I provided a link to a page where there are numerous publications describing what was actually found. There was no TRex blood or soft vessels. The only soft tissue was collagen which was generalized and only seen after dissolving the mineral matrix in an acid solution. None of that questions the age of the fossil.

 

[-57]

What you pointed out has nothing to do with any dating technique, and nevermind that your claim was false. Again, I provided a link to a page where there are numerous publications describing what was actually found. There was no TRex blood or soft vessels. The only soft tissue was collagen which was generalized and only seen after dissolving the mineral matrix in an acid solution. None of that questions the age of the fossil.

Do you really think Dr. Schweitzer is the only one who has found and investigated fossils containing dino tissue?

 

[-57]

Here's a video that discusses the issue.

 

[RickG]

Do you really think Dr. Schweitzer is the only one who has found and investigated fossils containing dino tissue?

Of course not, I made no such assertion. The fact is that the original source in the creation science literature making the claims you posted cite Schweitzer et al and their research.

Now, concerning the topic of this thread, do you have a dating method you wish to discuss?

 

[RickG]

Here's a video that discusses the issue.

This is a discussion/debate CF forum, not youtube, I suggest you describe specific points you wish to emphasize and join the discussion. What in the video suggests a problem with any dating method?

 

[-57]

Of course not, I made no such assertion. The fact is that the original source in the creation science literature making the claims you posted cite Schweitzer et al and their research.

Now, concerning the topic of this thread, do you have a dating method you wish to discuss?

1. Discordant isochrons: Igneous rock samples from multiple sites in the Grand Canyon, judged ideal for radiometric dating, were sent to leading test labs and cross-checked by four independent isochron methods with multiple data points and good statistics. The tests were double-blind; ICR had no control over the analysis, and the lab had no knowledge of the expected ages. If the methods were reliable, all the dates should have been the same, but even though ages in the billion-year range were obtained, all the techniques differed radically from each other, some by 200% or 300% for the same rock. ref

WHY?

 

[RickG]

I answered that in post 10.

So you claim that dating methods are invalid but do not wish to discuss what you view as a problem with any method. Let me know if you change your mind.

 

[RickG]

1. Discordant isochrons: Igneous rock samples from multiple sites in the Grand Canyon, judged ideal for radiometric dating, were sent to leading test labs and cross-checked by four independent isochron methods with multiple data points and good statistics. The tests were double-blind; ICR had no control over the analysis, and the lab had no knowledge of the expected ages. If the methods were reliable, all the dates should have been the same, but even though ages in the billion-year range were obtained, all the techniques differed radically from each other, some by 200% or 300% for the same rock. ref

WHY?

Why? First let me ask you for the source of that. Let me review what they say so I can be more informed. Then.....I can respond.

 

[-57]

Why? First let me ask you for the source of that. Let me review what they say so I can be more informed. Then.....I can respond.

The source was presented in post 16.

 

[RickG]

While waiting for your isochron source -57, my initial thoughts would recall the numerous misrepresentations of samples sent to be tested by independent labs. A lab can only proceed with a test with the information provided by the sample provider. Being given incorrect information or misrepresenting what was actually sent to the lab can easily result in errors. Also, you are citing something that appears to be a single incident, which in no way invalidates thousands of tests without any problems. Do you think the person(s) who sent the samples to be independently tested would be willing to redo the testing in the presents of mainstream geochronologists/geochemists? I mention this because I know of one specific incident that occurred in my local area where samples were grossly misrepresented.