Deep Time

klutedavid · Dec 29, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Beats me.

I'd like to know what they have to do with dating the earth.

Hello AV.

Apparently the oldest rock layers on earth have been recycled due to
plate tectonics. So the oldest strata on earth are missing, so we need
to go elsewhere to find rocks to date.

Hence AV, moon rocks and meteorites found on the earth's surface, are
analysed to provide the date of origin of the earth.

Assumptions and claims abound.

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello Rick.

What is the method used to date these rocks?

It would be one of the radiometric methods appropriate for the specimen.

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

AV1611VET said:
Why would they have to date moon rocks and meteorites, if all they had to do is date earth rocks?

Wouldn't moon rocks and meteorites throw off the age of the earth?

For example, what if they dated the oldest earth rock at 3 billion years old, then found a 4 billion year old meteorite?

Based on those two rocks alone, what would the age of the earth be dated at?

I would assume logic would dictate 3 billion years old, since the meteorite could have been floating around for a million years in space.

All the planets in the solar system, including the sun, coalesced from the same material which was debris from a prior supernovae, thus relatively all the same age.

-57 · Dec 30, 2015

Astrophile said:
You are ignoring the fact that sedimentary rocks are found underneath datable volcanic rocks. What conclusion would you draw if you found a fossil bone, or a fossil ammonite, in sedimentary rocks ten metres below a volcanic lava flow that was dated at 65 million years old?

Oh how I find that question to be so funny......What conclusion would you draw if you found soft tissue in rock that was dated at 65 million years old?

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

-57 said:
Oh how I find that question to be so funny......What conclusion would you draw if you found soft tissue in rock that was dated at 65 million years old?

How was the soft tissue found? Did they break open the fossil and soft tissue was exposed? What do you think?

BTW -57, even though dino soft tissue is off topic for this thread as not only several other participants have explained to you, but also a CF moderator as well, I will yield to a limited discussion of the soft tissue if you will answer the two questions I just asked. Also, in yielding to this discussion, I expect the mechanics of the dating method used to determine the age of that fossil be discussed in detail. Agreed?

-57 · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
How was the soft tissue found? Did they break open the fossil and soft tissue was exposed? What do you think?

Why was soft tissue found in the same portion of the fossil....not preserved?

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

-57 said:
Why was soft tissue found in the same portion of the fossil....not preserved?

So your understanding is that they broke open the fossils and there was soft tissue. Is that correct?

Justatruthseeker · Dec 30, 2015

Astrophile said:
You are ignoring the fact that sedimentary rocks are found underneath datable volcanic rocks. What conclusion would you draw if you found a fossil bone, or a fossil ammonite, in sedimentary rocks ten metres below a volcanic lava flow that was dated at 65 million years old?

I'd start by asking myself if your dating is really accurate?

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/

"Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:

When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;5 12
After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters; and
The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.

The “dates” obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.16 The “ages” range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded “ages” of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave “ages” of millions of years. The low “age” samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real.

Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct “date”, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct “age” if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!

Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar “ages” are due to “excess” argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth.17 Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of “normal” 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption (1) of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics18 and ancient crustal rocks.19

The K–Ar method works on the assumption that the “clock” begins to “tick” the moment that the rock hardens. That is, it assumes that no argon derived by radioactive decay was present initially, but after the lava cooled and solidified, the argon from radioactive decay was unable to escape and started to accumulate.

However, it is well-known that if a radiometric “date” contradicts a fossil-derived (evolutionary) age, the date is discarded as erroneous. See Lubenow, M., The Pigs Took It All, Creation 17(3):36–38, 1995."

So your dating methods showed dates of millions of years for lava we know formed 25 to 50 years ago, because they fail to take into account the argon seeping into the lava from below as the older rock is turned into lava deep in the earth.

So if they can't even date lava flows only 25-50 years old correctly - what makes you think they got 15 million year old lava dated correctly? Besides your belief that you want it to be so?

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/
"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins."

Yes, they will discard their own claimed accurate dating methods when it comes to their beliefs in evolution. Whatever it takes to support the Fairie Dust.

AV1611VET · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
All the planets in the solar system, including the sun, coalesced from the same material which was debris from a prior supernovae, thus relatively all the same age.

I still have to ask:

Why look at the moon and meteorites to ascertain the earth's age?

Justatruthseeker · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
All the planets in the solar system, including the sun, coalesced from the same material which was debris from a prior supernovae, thus relatively all the same age.

And yet your comet formation theories are one and all incorrect, based upon this belief of how the solar system formed.

http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news113.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124161617.htm

Your theoretical models of the heliosphere based upon this belief of how they are formed one and all failed to match reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

So based upon your beliefs of solar system formation - comets refuse to obey them, and all your models of what we should observe at the heliosphere failed to match predictions based upon those other beliefs. Clearly those beliefs of formation are also incorrect.

-57 · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
So your understanding is that they broke open the fossils and there was soft tissue. Is that correct?

No.
Again I must ask...Why was soft tissue found in the same portion of the fossil....not preserved?

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

-57 said:
No.
Again I must ask...Why was soft tissue found in the same portion of the fossil....not preserved?

It was preserved in solid calcified rock. It was found when they begin dissolving calcified rock to clean the fossil and it was only collagen and nothing else.

-57 · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
It was preserved in solid calcified rock. It was found when they begin dissolving calcified rock to clean the fossil and it was only collagen and nothing else.

You need to get up to speed. You post as if Mary S's fossil is the only one out there.

Your argument "It was preserved in solid calcified rock." means nothing...considering right next to it in solid calcified rock it wasn't preserved.

RickG · Dec 30, 2015

-57 said:
You need to get up to speed. You post as if Mary S's fossil is the only one out there.

It was your reference, not mine. I know there are other examples.

Your argument "It was preserved in solid calcified rock." means nothing...considering right next to it in solid calcified rock it wasn't preserved.

I have no idea what you mean by that. It was encapsulated in solid rock. The rock had to be demineralized to expose it.

Abstract from the published paper: "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time."

And here is a link to the full paper: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...of_protein/links/0fcfd51488e678564b000000.pdf

-57 · Dec 30, 2015

klutedavid · Dec 30, 2015

RickG said:
It would be one of the radiometric methods appropriate for the specimen.

Hello Rick.

Thanks for your replies to my questions.

What was the source of each of the meteorites that have been used to date the earth?

RickG · Dec 31, 2015

-57 said:
Soft tissue has been presenting problem for old earth dates for quite a while.

Still Soft after Half a Billion Years?

Bloody Mosquito Fossil Supports Recent Creation

Scientists Broom Challenging Discoveries Beneath 'Contamination' Rug

The Incredible, Edible '190 Million-Year-Old Egg'

Triceratops Horn Soft Tissue Foils 'Biofilm' Explanation

Dinosaur Bone Tissue Study Refutes Critics

Bone DNA Decays Too Fast for Evolution

Fresh Fossil Squid Ink 160 Million Years Old?

Are Iceman Blood Cells Really the Oldest?

Researchers Find Fossil Salamanders' Last Meals

2011 Another Frustrating Year for Evolution

Over 100 Frozen Original Mammoth Proteins Found

Evolution Can't Explain Organic Fossils

Skin Sample Is Two Million Years Old?

Trace Metals Study Confirms Fossil Has Original Feathers

Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue

Paleozoic Scorpion Exoskeleton Gainsays Assigned Age

Origins Breakthroughs of 2010: Paleontology

The Mysteries of Stunning Soft Tissue Fossil Finds

'Remarkably Preserved' Shrimp Is 350 Million Years Old?

Cache of Amber in India Looks Young

How Long Can Cartilage Last?

Giant Penguin Feather Poses Problem for Long Ages

Teen Finds Lobster Fossil with Original Shell

'80 Million-Year-Old' Mosasaur Fossil Has Soft Retina and Blood Residue

Fantastic Australian Amber Supports Young World

A New Evolutionary Link? Australopithecus sediba Has All the Wrong Signs

Feathered Dinosaur Debate Exhibits Young Earth Evidence

Fresh Tissues from Solid Rock

Intact DNA Discovered in Ancient Salt Deposits

Fresh Salamander Tissue Found in Solid Rock

A Global Catastrophic Event Wiped Out Ancient Forests

Fresh Fossil Feather Nanostructures

Fresh Jurassic Squid Ink

'45-Million-Year-Old' Brewer's Yeast Still Works

Mummified Dinosaur Skin Looks Young

-57, in a discussion/debate forum you are expected to do just that, not spam. I am only briefly addressing your unwarranted obsession with soft tissue because I want you to understand that it was not found in a soft condition, rather it was fully mineralized and discovered only when in the process of cleaning the fossil it was placed in an acid solution to dissolve the minerals. Additionally, there was only a very minute quantity that was there. In my previous post I provided a link the original source of the soft tissue discovery so you could read for your self what, how, and how much was found, which is not the same information you get from your non-science sources. Now, you can either review the paper I linked and ask questions, or the soft tissue issue discussion is over.

As I stated previously, soft tissue extracted from a fossil has nothing to do with any dating method or its validity. It only questions our understanding of the fossilization process.

Enough said.

-57 · Dec 31, 2015

RickG, My list just supports my opinion that the dating techniques that you support...are inaccurate.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Dec 31, 2015

-57 said:
RickG, My list just supports my opinion that the dating techniques that you support...are inaccurate.

No, it doesn't. All you have done, repeatedly, is just SAY that it does but have offered no actual scientific evidence to show that soft tissue invalidates geological dating of the Earth with regards to deep time.
If you can actually SHOW how it invalidates deep time, and I mean actually show it, not just spamming links or just going "Yes it does!" ad nauseum, DO IT.
Follow the simplest rule of the playground: put up or shut up.

RickG · Dec 31, 2015

klutedavid said:
Hello Rick.

Thanks for your replies to my questions.

What was the source of each of the meteorites that have been used to date the earth?

By what source do you mean which dating methods? If so, it depends upon the isotopes contained in the meteorites. It more than likely encompasses any or all of the following methods:

U-235/Pb-207
K-40/Ar40
U-238/Pb-206
Th-232/Pb-208
Rb-87/Sr-87

and some others as well. Also keep in mind there are a number of different techniques that may be applied with each of these methods as well. For example, Thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS). If you like I can provide links to full papers describing their methods/techniques specific to meteorites. Thank you for inquiring.

Deep Time

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency