Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps you guys need a lesson on how Psalm 19 works?
Like this?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?
Today the major censors of scientific work are governments, corporations and elite scientists.
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.
Like this?
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.
Do you?Do you have anything to contribute to the TOPIC of this thread?
I didn't see what "creation science literature" said about it.The scope of this thread is to look at what the "creation science" literature has to say about geologic dating methods and their validity.
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.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
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.
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)
I thought you wanted what their literature has to say -- not their opinions?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).
By stating "what creation science has to say about mainstream dating methods", that is specific to the literature.I thought you wanted what their literature has to say -- not their opinions?
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.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.
I'm sure you do.Its an open thread, I encourage more posters to participate and contribute to the thread.
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.
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.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.
Oh, ya ... that's right!That's not a dating method. The OP specifically stated discussing geologic dating methods.
QV please: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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?