Deep Time

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps you guys need a lesson on how Psalm 19 works?

This is not a thread for the discussion on theology. This is a thread for a discussion on science. Do you have any science to discuss?

 

[RickG]

Here's one of the new applications now being used with the ATTA method. Up to now dating ice cores beyond 800,000 years has been restricted with traditional methods of layer counting through stable isotope analysis or impurities. Don't misunderstand those are excellent methods but they do have their limits. With the ATTA method, ice up to 1.5 million years can be dated very accurately as it does not depend upon layer counting.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not a thread for the discussion on theology. This is a thread for a discussion on science. Do you have any science to discuss?

Like this?

Today the major censors of scientific work are governments, corporations and elite scientists.

SOURCE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's one of the new applications now being used with the ATTA method. Up to now dating ice cores beyond 800,000 years has been restricted with traditional methods of layer counting through stable isotope analysis or impurities. Don't misunderstand those are excellent methods but they do have their limits. With the ATTA method, ice up to 1.5 million years can be dated very accurately as it does not depend upon layer counting.

So does this mean we could get a better time frame on when the first ice formed in areas like Antarctica and such?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like this?

On the topic in the OP. Do you have any science to discuss on the topic mentioned in the OP?

 

[RickG]

Like this?

SOURCE

Do you have anything to contribute to the TOPIC of this thread? Your participation in discussing the topic of the tread will be most welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have anything to contribute to the TOPIC of this thread?

Do you?

If so, please show me how your Post 102 satisfies the "scope" you mentioned in your OP.

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

I didn't see what "creation science literature" said about it.

Only what you're saying.

 

[RickG]

So does this mean we could get a better time frame on when the first ice formed in areas like Antarctica and such?

Absolutely. As cores go deeper anomalies do occur. being able to date outside the area of annual layers can help bridge the gap anomalies. Here's a paper describing it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/19/6876.full

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Absolutely. As cores go deeper anomalies do occur. being able to date outside the area of annual layers can help bridge the gap anomalies. Here's a paper describing it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/19/6876.full

So I assume that also means that, if they do drill the ice cores, then paleontologists could make more predictions on where to find Antarctic dinosaurs? (off topic, I know, but I'v been rewatching Walking With Dinosaurs again)

 

[RickG]

Do you?

If so, please show me how your Post 102 satisfies the "scope" you mentioned in your OP.I didn't see what "creation science literature" said about it.

Only what you're saying.

I am asking posters to contribute what creation science has to say about mainstream dating methods, especially with their descriptions as to why they think they do not work. Because I am familiar with many dating methods and have an academic background in the area and some 30 years as a research chemist, it is my intent to point out errors is see in those descriptions and show where they are incorrect. Keep in mind that I am not looking for dating discrepancies in samples. I am interested in the dating method(s).

 

[RickG]

So I assume that also means that, if they do drill the ice cores, then paleontologists could make more predictions on where to find Antarctic dinosaurs? (off topic, I know, but I'v been rewatching Walking With Dinosaurs again)

Actually there were dinosaurs in Antarctica.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ANTARCTICA/links/0c96051edd5c525d0b000000.pdf

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually there were dinosaurs in Antarctica.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marcelo_Reguero/publication/232663398_THE_FIRST_DUCK-BILLED_DINOSAUR_(FAMILY_HADROSAURIDAE)_FROM_ANTARCTICA/links/0c96051edd5c525d0b000000.pdf

I do know that. But I do know that there aren't that many fossils and such on them. So with the inclusion of more accurate ice core testing, then we'd have a better understanding on dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures that lived on the continent that became Antarctica.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am asking posters to contribute what creation science has to say about mainstream dating methods, especially with their descriptions as to why they think they do not work. Because I am familiar with many dating methods and have an academic background in the area and some 30 years as a research chemist, it is my intent to point out errors is see in those descriptions and show where they are incorrect. Keep in mind that I am not looking for dating discrepancies in samples. I am interested in the dating method(s).

I thought you wanted what their literature has to say -- not their opinions?

And for asking them to speak up ... and I'll admit, they aren't ... you seem to be chatting away with another poster on what your side has to say.

Are you afraid this thread will go dormant?

 

[RickG]

I thought you wanted what their literature has to say -- not their opinions?

By stating "what creation science has to say about mainstream dating methods", that is specific to the literature.

And for asking them to speak up ... and I'll admit, they aren't ... you seem to be chatting away with another poster on what your side has to say.

Its an open thread, I encourage more posters to participate and contribute to the thread. It doesn't matter what position they take. Opposing positions are encouraged, but we need to be on topic. This is a discussion/debate forum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its an open thread, I encourage more posters to participate and contribute to the thread.

I'm sure you do.

I know when someone is starting a thread with the attitude:

"Come on. I dare a YEC to say something. I'm gonna rub his face in what today's contemporary science has to say about it."

Baiting is fun, isn't it?

After all, if you really wanted to know what YEC literature has to say, you would have Googled it yourself.

Anyone chiming in with their opinion though, would either get a "I asked for what your literature says," or a "Let me tell you where you're wrong ..."

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm tired of arguing with you over this, Rick.

Here, I'll prove my point:

The biblical geologic model of earth history is certainly at odds with traditional uniformitarian assumptions. Creation geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has published a comprehensive two-volume text on the catastrophic nature of earth's recent past. In it, he provides powerful biblical and scientific evidence pointing to the young age of our created planet.

For example, consider the accumulated salt in the world's oceans. Evolutionists maintain that the seas--from whence our supposed ancestors generated--are at least three billion years old. However, the low concentration of salt in the oceans calls this great age into question.

There are many other salts in the ocean besides "table salt," which is composed of equal amounts of chlorine and sodium atoms. These solid crystals can be dissolved by water, which separates the elements from one another into individual charged atoms called ions.

Researching the historically possible values, as well as present processes of both output and input of sodium, gives us insight into the ocean's history. Leached sodium ions from weathered minerals is carried to the oceans from rivers and other sources. It has been reliably estimated that 457 million tons of this sodium is added to the oceans annually by river drainage.

Sodium also leaves the ocean via salt spray and ion exchange in a measured amount. If these rates were consistent throughout the past (a proposition that must be assumed), then salt accumulation can become a kind of clock used to measure the ocean's age. We know how fast salt enters and how fast it leaves. It is apparent that the oceans have not yet reached equilibrium. Instead, they keep getting saltier every year.

By being as generous as we can for the evolutionist regarding sodium input and output rates, the ocean's age is only 40 to 60 million years. This obviously is far short of the uniformitarian (evolutionary) age of 3 billion years. But the "40 to 60 million years old" age is considerably more than the thousands of years creation scientists maintain is the biblical/ scientific age of this planet.

The discrepancy lies in the assumption that there was no sodium in the oceans at creation, and that all salt has been added at present rates since that time. However, the modern creation science model of earth's history begins with a saltwater environment in which the newly created saltwater fish would swim. Exactly how salty the oceans were cannot be known. The global Flood added considerable amounts of sodium into the seas due to volcanism (volcanic dust contributes some sodium) and massive erosion.

Critics attempt to blunt the implications with the faulty argument of aluminum accumulation in the oceans. Some maintain that since the current amount of this metal in the seas would indicate the earth was only a century old, the ocean's salt clock is invalid. But unlike sodium, aluminum exits the ocean as rapidly as it enters. The cycle time, technically called "residence time," is short, only about 100 years. This is clearly not true for the element sodium, so the ocean's missing salt refutes belief in an old earth.

Accumulating salt in the ocean does not "prove" anything, but it does deal a death blow to evolutionary ideas. Holding to the well-attested biblical text gives us the true age of the world's oceans--measured in just thousands of years.

SOURCE

Now watch, folks.

Instead of respecting that belief, he will now either "correct" it, or ridicule its source, or both.[/quote][/quote]

 

[RickG]

I'm tired of arguing with you over this, Rick.

Here, I'll prove my point:

SOURCE

Now watch, folks.

Instead of respecting that belief, he will now either "correct" it, or ridicule its source, or both.

That's not a dating method. The OP specifically stated discussing geologic dating methods.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Time is relative to how we measure it which is based on the length of a year, which is the time it takes for the earth to make a complete orbit around the sun. That is a year and we measure time by divisions of that standard. So enough about what is relative. To conflate what time is beyond that standard is off topic.

As for decay rates we know they have not changed. We know this on three levels.

1. If there were some physical change in the physical structure and properties of any element those changes would be seen at the point of change. Conversely, in dating rocks through numerous different methods and with numerous different isotopes, we so no change in those physical properties at any point in time what so ever. Measuring radionuclide decay rates is a continuous ongoing endeavor in labs around the world, not to see if a decay rate will change, but to measure those rates more accurately.

2. Supernovae produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes from gamma ray with frequencies and fading rates that match present decay rates. This includes supernova 1987A, 169,0000 light years distant, SN1991T, sixty million light-years distant, and observations of supernovae several billion light-years away. (Knödlseder 2000), (Prantzos 1999), (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

3. And a special note, do not confuse the well known and studied oscillations of some cosmogenic istopes due to Earth's position in its orbit around the sun. This does not affect any dating method. Oscillations are just that, oscillations, not rate changes, because they are consistent.

Exactly, you hit the nail right on the head. Time on earth is determined by cosmos astronomy, from the very beginning of science in Ancient Sumeria the Sumerians mixed astronomy together with astrology and so they mixed error with truth. Abraham was appointed by God to come out from among them and to separate himself from their error. The Sumerians as primitive as they were had the very first written records and they left us hundreds of thousands of clay tablets. While many of them have not been translated we still have a feel for where science began.

Second you say we measure radionuclide decay. You say this decay has a known rate that you feel comfortable with. because of the ongoing endeavor to determone with more accuracy what those rates are for each element. According to Google the age of the earth is 4.543 billion years, the age of the universe is 13.82 billion years. We determine this by the Hubble constant. So the very first thing your going to have to deal with is how constant is the Hubble constant? Because nothing in this universe seems to be as constant as we are lead to believe. We know that Radiation levels do not remain constant over time. That is why they are more comfortable with short range measurements. You also have the Planct constant to deal with. We know over a 10 year period we have corrected the atomic clock by one second three (3) times. That does not sound very constant or accurate to me. If anyone want to do the math of projecting one second every ten years out over a 13.82 billion year period of time.

Third you and me do not live in the same moment of time. This moment may seem real and special to you yet you are reading something that was written in a different moment of time then the one you currently occupy. So you have to deal with the past, present and future in this flow of time. Time is a concept that is just as much a philosophy as it cosmology and the ists that study those fields. So then we have to investigate if time is an illusion. Because it all seems a bit absurd to me that you are trying to establish a constant to measure change. So now you are dealing with the unity of opposites (water is cold, fire is hot). Elements (earth, air, fire, water) and pairs of opposites (hot/cold, wet/dry).

It all reminds me of a Chinese Acrobatics trying to balance all their plates at the same time. So by all means lets get this circus on the road and see where it goes.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not a dating method. The OP specifically stated discussing geologic dating methods.

Oh, ya ... that's right!

LOL -- and I caught that earlier and was gonna make an issue about it.

Okay ... I'll try to satisfy your OP again.

Just to make my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, ya ... that's right!

LOL -- and I caught that earlier and was gonna make an issue about it.

Okay ... I'll try to satisfy your OP again.

Just to make my point.

QV please:

We’ve all noticed the many layers of rock strata as we drive along a road cut. It seems as though we are driving through a huge “layer cake,” cut open to expose the inside. Grand Canyon looks this way. Most of the exposed layered rocks are sedimentary rocks. It appears one layer was deposited directly upon another. The “stack” of layers might have been tilted, folded, or faulted subsequent to deposition, but the layers were flat-lying when first deposited. Thus, the ground surface usually represents the top of the final layer in any particular region.

For decades the discipline of geology was dominated by this “layer cake” thinking, and even today it is a convenient theory for geologists. But scientists have discovered that geologic layers are not always laid down one after another. Sometimes, a sequence of layers is laid down simultaneously from left to right, not from top to bottom.

[diagram of something]

All geologists recognize that major geologic events accomplished much of the deposition of the rocks we see. Tsunamis, underwater mudflows, gravity slides, turbidity currents, etc., are all capable of laying down sediment rapidly. Only energetic flow can carry along and eventually deposit large particles. As such a flow slows, finer grains drop out. These events mirror our understanding of the dynamic Flood of Noah’s day.

Consider a continual supply of sediment being propelled underwater. The large sand grains drop out at the leading edge of the flow as the velocity slows and water curls back, but the finest grains remain mobile. More sediment-laden water follows, with the larger grains resting just beyond the prior deposit, and the finer grains come to rest on top of the coarser grains. This continues and ultimately results in two or more blanket-like layers, all of which were simultaneously deposited laterally, rather than in a consecutive and vertical manner. This concept is clarified in the accompanying diagram,1 which specifically explains the coarse-to-fine-grained Sauk Megasequence in Grand Canyon. The sequence consists of the coarse-grained Tapeats Sandstone, the fine-grained Bright Angel Shale, and the even finer-grained Muav Limestone, each of which has enormous horizontal extent and a comparatively minor thickness. The concept applies, in general, to all such megasequences and in many locations. Many of the Flood rocks were deposited this way.

SOURCE