Deep Time

[RickG]

The source was presented in post 16.

Okay, thanks. It wasn't an obvious link but I have it now.

 

[-57]

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.

misrepresentations? How so?
Remember...ICR had no control over the analysis. The tests were double-blind.

You asked "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 would think they would have no problem with that.

 

[RickG]

Well -57, I'm afraid there is no more information on the claim other than what posted (word for word). I suggest my post (#20) describes the probable reason. Do you wish to review the isochron method?

 

[JackRT]

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.

As a Christian who is also a scientist, I am greatly distressed that some of my fellow Christians so often resort to dishonesty in order to support a discredited POV that most Christians quite rightly reject.

 

[RickG]

misrepresentations? How so?
Remember...ICR had no control over the analysis. The tests were double-blind.

What I am suggesting has nothing to do with the actual testing, rather the samples sent. In other words, they do not represent what the sample providers said they were. One I am familiar with is a supposed dinosaur collagen sample sent to the University of Georgia Radiocarbon lab. It supposedly was much like the one from Schweitzers T-Rex collagen. It supposedly dated to only some 40 to 50 thousand years of age. There are several problems that occurred. First, UGA says they have not been sent any samples designated as dinosaur collagen. Secondly, the creation science people who sent the sample describe sending bone samples. Thus, the collagen had not been extracted from the bone. No radiocarbon lab is going to perform such an extraction to expose the collagen. In fact, they (sample providers) wouldn't even know if there was any collagen there until the extraction process was performed. There are other problems as well.

You asked "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 would think they would have no problem with that.

I would bet my life that they would not agree to joint testing.

 

[-57]

What I am suggesting has nothing to do with the actual testing, rather the samples sent. In other words, they do not represent what the sample providers said they were. One I am familiar with is a supposed dinosaur collagen sample sent to the University of Georgia Radiocarbon lab. It supposedly was much like the one from Schweitzers T-Rex collagen. It supposedly dated to only some 40 to 50 thousand years of age. There are several problems that occurred. First, UGA says they have not been sent any samples designated as dinosaur collagen. Secondly, the creation science people who sent the sample describe sending bone samples. Thus, the collagen had not been extracted from the bone. No radiocarbon lab is going to perform such an extraction to expose the collagen. In fact, they (sample providers) wouldn't even know if there was any collagen there until the extraction process was performed. There are other problems as well.



I would bet my life that they would not agree to joint testing.

The samples tested were Igneous rock.

 

[PastorFreud]

I did not understand this sentence and could not find any documented source in your link.
"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."

So I didn't understand the claim because reliable rock dating methods have a huge +/- range given that rock formation is a lengthy process. The actual dates are in the billion year range according to the sentence, so how the 200% and 300% are calculated is quite unclear. Wouldn't 200% or 300% different be 2 or 3 billion years? The dating techniques differed or the rock ages? The sentence appears to be intentionally confusing and makes multiple unsubstantiated claims. Is there a link to the actual data?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

From -57's reference:

"The seven scientists summarized evidence now documented in a technical book, a popular summary and a documentary film. The research included both field and theoretical work, including the gathering of samples from rock samples around the world for radiometric dating. The team members, all Bible believing Christians committed to a Biblical young-earth chronology, followed accepted lab protocols and had their samples evaluated by state-of-the-art equipment at world-class facilities." (emphasis mine)

I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I'm feeling a bit skeptical of this source.

 

[joshua 1 9]

None of that questions the age of the fossil.

If you have preserved tissue then it is a pretty good bet that they did not die from natural causes. They were killed before their time. Perhaps by some sort of natural disaster. When they die from natural causes then the bacteria breaks down the tissue fairly fast. This is the case when we find skeletons, they were usually murdered and have a arrow heads in them. Because they are young the tissue is well preserved because young people are healthy and not loaded down with bacteria.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The one thing I never understood with the claim of the geological column being a by-product of the Flood is when they (Flood proponents and the like) say that it's sorted so that heavier rocks are at the bottom while lighter ones are at the top.
Where I live in Wales, we have quite an abundance of slate quarries. Now slate is a shale-type rock, formed from volcanic ash and/or clay and was formed by low heat and pressure. This means that if the Flood occurred as has been continually stated, then we would not have slate, since all of the necessary buildup of the sediments, as put forth by Flood proponents, would create too much pressure to allow slate to form.
Also (although this might be unique to European slate formations, I'm not 100% sure), many dinosaur fossils are found in slate formations, further showing that several tens of million years would have to pass to create slate formations, which would not be possible with the short time frame creation 'scientists' say is real.

 

[RickG]

The samples tested were Igneous rock.

Could you be a little more clearer about that response? Are you saying the samples tested were from the source you linked or the source that was in my response you just quoted? I ask because certainly the samples tested by the isochron methods would have to be igneous as the example I gave would have been organic. Thank you.

 

[RickG]

The one thing I never understood with the claim of the geological column being a by-product of the Flood is when they (Flood proponents and the like) say that it's sorted so that heavier rocks are at the bottom while lighter ones are at the top.
Where I live in Wales, we have quite an abundance of slate quarries. Now slate is a shale-type rock, formed from volcanic ash and/or clay and was formed by low heat and pressure. This means that if the Flood occurred as has been continually stated, then we would not have slate, since all of the necessary buildup of the sediments, as put forth by Flood proponents, would create too much pressure to allow slate to form.
Also (although this might be unique to European slate formations, I'm not 100% sure), many dinosaur fossils are found in slate formations, further showing that several tens of million years would have to pass to create slate formations, which would not be possible with the short time frame creation 'scientists' say is real.

Just to add a bit, slate can be composed of many different types of minerals, sedimentary rock and volcanic ash. What is unique is its fine grained composition, which is originally shale that has undergone low-grade metamorphism. The low-grade metamorphism is why fossils are not destroyed in the metamorphic process. Indeed, this process requires considerable time.

 

[Armoured]

If you have preserved tissue then it is a pretty good bet that they did not die from natural causes. They were killed before their time. Perhaps by some sort of natural disaster. When they die from natural causes then the bacteria breaks down the tissue fairly fast. This is the case when we find skeletons, they were usually murdered and have a arrow heads in them. Because they are young the tissue is well preserved because young people are healthy and not loaded down with bacteria.

Citation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think another thing that can be used to show that deep time is the reality is that existence of diamonds and other gems. Now obviously I'm talking about true diamonds, not the ones made by modern means.
Diamonds are formed through both extremely high pressure and extremely high heat and are regularly found at depths of between 140 kilometres and 190 kilometres below the surface.
Now if the young Earth and Flood account are both true, and if the claim that the Flood was the cause for the breakup of Pangaea, then, with the resultant extremes of heat and pressure that would surely have resulted from the break-up, we would see diamonds more often and more closer to the surface than they really are.

 

[RickG]

Just a reminded concerning the OP of this thread. I'm still looking for specific claims as to why mainstream science dating methods are invalid according to creation science claims.

OP: 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.​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just a reminded concerning the OP of this thread. I'm still looking for specific claims as to why mainstream science dating methods are invalid according to creation science claims.

OP: 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.​

I think you're going to have the same problem I had: people who will use the Bible as a science textbook, then waxing theological on evolution and other off-topic things.
Plus I think you scared them off by say the thread is only about science.

 

[RickG]

I think you're going to have the same problem I had: people who will use the Bible as a science textbook, then waxing theological on evolution and other off-topic things.
Plus I think you scared them off by say the thread is only about science.

Yes, this thread is about the science presented and how valid it is, not one's personal beliefs outside of science or the reason for those beliefs. Science and only science.

 

[RickG]

Just a heads up for everyone. This thread is open to any scientific dating method, rather radiometric, non-radiometric, absolute or relative.

 

[-57]

I think another thing that can be used to show that deep time is the reality is that existence of diamonds and other gems. Now obviously I'm talking about true diamonds, not the ones made by modern means.
Diamonds are formed through both extremely high pressure and extremely high heat and are regularly found at depths of between 140 kilometres and 190 kilometres below the surface.
Now if the young Earth and Flood account are both true, and if the claim that the Flood was the cause for the breakup of Pangaea, then, with the resultant extremes of heat and pressure that would surely have resulted from the break-up, we would see diamonds more often and more closer to the surface than they really are.

The problems with diamonds...why do they still contain C14? The answer is, they are young.

 

[lasthero]

The problems with diamonds...why do they still contain C14? The answer is, they are young.

What does the age of diamonds have to do with the age of the Earth?