"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

Nic Samojluk said:

How Rocks are Dated

“Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is. …”

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Click to expand...

Did you read posts 841 and 843, which explained the use of fossils to determine the relative ages of rocks? If you did, perhaps you should read them again, particularly post 843. Perhaps you should also read some books on stratigraphy, written by professional geologists.

Nic Samojluk said:

How Rocks are Dated

“Many people think scientists determine the ages of rocks by radiometric dating. Later in this article, we will discuss radiometric dating in detail in its own section. But the fact is that the dating of rocks to a particular time period in the past is not done by any sort of objective measurement. The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is. …”

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Click to expand...

I am sorry, but lying creationist sites that require their workers to abandon the scientific method is not a valid source. Try again and please don't use utter garbage next time.

Nic Samojluk said:

I would question the assumptions underlying the study. Here is a list of assumptions for radiometric dating:

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true.

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Click to expand...

Still relying on dishonest sources.

A. Atomic physicists have a good understanding of radioactive decay and why it is constant. If you want to claim the rate changes the burden of proof is upon you.

B. There are ways of determining the original amount of lead. And today we don't use "whole rock" we use individual crystals. There are crystals that do not chemically allow lead into their structure when they form. This can even be observed in the laboratory. Zircon is perhaps that most common one. It is a crystal that excludes lead strongly so we know that we have a starting figure of "0" for them. And whole rock can still be dated with "concordia". That allows us to ignore the initial amount of lead. You should not use ignorant sites.

C. This is for all practical purposes the same claim as before.

D. Again, with zircons there isn't. With whole rock samplers do look for weathering and other factors.

E. Again, zircons do not "leach". And observers look for weathering and other factors.

F. And once again, care is taken to make sure of that.

You have nothing. Here is an article that may help you to understand:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/...c-dating-methods-makes-untenable-assumptions/

Nic Samojluk said:

However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true. But there is a flip-side to the uranium-lead dating method. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays, it also produces helium-4 as a by-product. But unlike lead, helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks. But if that were the case, we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. But the tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not 4 to 5 billion years. Even uranium-lead radiometric dating provides evidence that the earth is young when one considers the lack of helium-4 on the planet.

Click to expand...

Wrong, the solar wind removes helium from our upper atmosphere. A lack of helium is not a problem.

Another radiometric dating method is the Potassium-Argon method. With this method, ages found from samples taken from a single rock may differ drastically. Rocks formed from the active Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were found to increase in age as the depth of the rock increased. Lava flows known to be less than 200 years old yielded dates of up to 22 million years using this method. Part of the problem is that argon, which is abundant in the atmosphere, can be incorporated into the rocks under pressure, making the Potassium-Argon method yield older dates.

Click to expand...

That is correct. One must know the limitations of the dating method being used. If your sample has crystals from an older rock, known as xenocryts, and artificially high date can be given by whole rock Potassium-Argon methods. That is why one cannot use certain methods on very young rocks. Scientists have been aware of this for some time. The fact that certain dishonest creationists improperly used potassium argon on some samples does nothing to refute this dating method. It only makes the people that misused the tool look bad.

The radio-carbon (C-14) dating method is another very inaccurate dating method. Results differ greatly even in the same rock layer. In rocks that are supposed to be 110 million years old, dinosaur bones and wood were taken and dated to 19,000 years old and 890 years old respectively using this method. In addition, the shells of living mollusks regularly date to more than 2000 years old using the radio-carbon method. One other interesting note about C-14 is that its level on the earth is presently increasing exponentially, and is now 30 per cent short of equilibrium. It has been estimated that it would have taken less than 8000 years for the C-14 to reach its present level of concentration.

Ref.: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

Click to expand...

And only an idiot would carbon date rocks that are millions of years old. And there is no "supposed" about it. Again one has to be aware of the limitations of a dating method. With a sample with no original C14 left it takes only a very small amount of contamination to give a false young date. Used properly C-14 is very reliable. When the tool is abused by liars and fools it will give false values. You have once again been listening to people that know better. What is a shame is that the people you are trusting know what they are doing wrong and they do not care.

Astrophile said:

The redshifts of galaxies and quasars, the redshift-distance relation, the cosmic microwave background, the cosmic abundances of hydrogen, deuterium, helium-3, helium-4 and lithium, and the results of the BOOMERanG experiment are observational data, which have to be explained by any theory of cosmology.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the Red shift theory is being reconsidered and alternative explanations are being studied. Experts need time to make the proper adjustments.

Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered

“By referring to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts, we are insisting that our Newtonian intuition about motion still applies without significant change to the cosmological arena. A result of this thinking is that quasars now being detected at redshifts of Z = 4.0 would have to be interpreted as traveling a speeds of more than V = Z x c or 4 times the speed of light. This is, of course, quite absurd, because we all know that no physical object may travel faster than the speed of light.

To avoid such apparently nonsensical speeds, many popularizers use the special relativistic Doppler formula to show that quasars are really not moving faster than light. The argument being that for large velocities, special relativity replaces Newtonian physics as the correct framework for interpreting the world. By using a special relativistic velocity addition formula the quasar we just discussed has a velocity of 92 percent the speed of light. Although we now have a feeling that Reason has returned to our description of the universe, in fact, we have only replaced one incomplete explanation for another. The calculation of the quasar's speed now presupposes that special relativity ( a theory of flat spacetime) is applicable even at cosmological scales where general relativity predicts that spacetime curvature becomes important. This is equivalent to a surveyor making a map of the state of California, and not allowing for the curvature of the earth! …”

This means that the special relativistic Doppler formula should not, in fact cannot, be used to quantify the velocity of distant quasars. We have no choice in this matter if we want to maintain the logical integrity of both theories. …

In the future it is hoped that a death knell will finally have sounded for the last vestige of the older thinking. With the Doppler interpretation of the cosmological redshift at last reconsidered, and rejected, we will finally be able to embrace the essential beauty and mystery of cosmic expansion as it was originally envisioned by its discoverers.”

Ref.: http://cecelia.physics.indiana.edu/life/redshift.html

Astrophile said:

So far, only the Big Bang theory has succeeded in explaining these data. If the Big Bang is to be replaced by a new theory, that new theory has to explain the same observational data.

Click to expand...

In the following theory notice the absence of singularities.

TAKE 27 LTD/SPL

“The conventional model of cosmology is that most galaxies recede from one another as space itself inflates like the surface of a balloon — which would explain why other galaxies appear redshifted from our own galaxy's point of view. But one cosmologist has a different interpretation of that redshift. …

If an atom were to grow in mass, the photons it emits would become more energetic. Because higher energies correspond to higher frequencies, the emission and absorption frequencies would move towards the blue part of the spectrum. Conversely, if the particles were to become lighter, the frequencies would become redshifted. …

For Wetterich, the lack of an experimental test misses the point. He says that his interpretation could be useful for thinking about different cosmological models, in the same way that physicists use different interpretations of quantum mechanics that are all mathematically consistent. In particular, Wetterich says, the lack of a Big Bang singularity is a major advantage. …”

Ref.: http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379

dad said:

Not me, I just read it from the mouth of God. The stars came the same day as the sun. Plants were before so I assume there was atmosphere. Elementary Watson.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that God doesn't know how photosynthesis works?

http://photosynthesisforkids.com/

AV1611VET said:

Lava surrounds Mr. Rex and solidifies into basalt rock.

What's the problem here?

Click to expand...

My problem here is that there are no fossils whatsoever that are found in igneous rocks!

Show me a T rex that is a fossil embedded within basalt, and then I'll address your claim.

Nic Samojluk said:

According to the Bible fools are those who ignore God: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God.” I conclude that those who openly ignore God—instead of in their hearts—must be super fools.

Click to expand...

'According to the bible'... are words that can precede any old cobblers, and your quote is a case in point.

JasonClark said:

Are you saying that God doesn't know how photosynthesis works?

http://photosynthesisforkids.com/

Click to expand...

Remember, a creationist's god isn't allowed to know anything the creationist himself doesn't.

Nic Samojluk said:

Radiometric dating involves the process of a radioactive element, such as uranium, decaying into another element, such as lead. Uranium-lead radiometric dating would be a good clock for estimating the age of rocks if we knew the following.

(A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead.

(B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed.

(C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium.

(D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside.

(E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching.

(F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock.

Click to expand...

I had hoped you would have responded on my previous post addressing your post #878, of which I have quoted only the above portion dealing with the Uranium-Series dating method. Here is some additional information with some specifics I hope you will understand.

What your source probably describes is the uses and applications of U/Pb dating, which are quite outdated (no pun intended). Also, to associate U/Pb dating as a generality of all radiometric dating is a gross miss application and demonstrates ones utter ignorance of not only the Uranium-Series, but all dating methods.

To begin with, note that my last reference mentioned the Uranium-Series. That right, Uranium does not decay directly to Lead. It does not now, never has, and never will, thus the emphasis on "series". Uranium progresses through a series of specific decays involving a number of isotopes, before becoming stable with a Lead isotope. I will explain, which is very important to understand where your source misleads you.

There are "three" basic series. One begins with 238U and progresses through seven daughter isotopes of significantly different half-lives before winding up on the stable isotope 206Pb. Another one begins with 235U and progresses through five daughter isotopes before winding up on the stable isotope 207Pb. A third series involves Thorium witch begins with 232Th, progressing through four daughter isotopes before stabilizing on 208Pb.

Here's a diagram of the process in which I will only include the isotopes involved. If anyone wants to know the half-lives of those isotopes, just let me know and I will provide them.

239U-->234Th-->234Pa-->234U-->230Th-226Ra-->222Rn-->206-Pb

235U-->231Th-->231Pa-->227Ac-->227Th-->207Pb

232Th-->228Ra-->228Ac-->228Th-->208Pb

When the activity of each of the daughter isotopes equal that of the parent isotope, as measured in numbers of disintegration's per unity time per unity weight of rock, it reaches a state of "secular equilibrium". And please note that the term "secular" in no way refers to any difference or relationship between religious or non-religious. NOTHING.

Now, that describes the so-called "assumed" closed state, which is not assumed. As I have stated before the YEC literature misapplies the term "assumes". In all dating methods textbooks, classrooms, and teaching labs; the term "assumed" is used to make the student understand that one cannot in fact "assume" pristine conditions. Once the student learns the process, then the student is taught the methods and processes in which those assumptions may be investigated, determined, and accounted for.

With particular emphasis on the Nasturtium-Series one of the possible problems investigated is "disequilibrium" This is a process known as Uranium-Series disequilibrium dating. This involves two different ways for determining disequilibrium within the series. One is the "daughter deficient" (DD) method and the other is the "daughter excess" (DA) method. In doing this, the ratios of all the series isotopes is examined. Because each of those daughter isotopes has its own unique half-life, it can be determined between ratio comparison if any of the ratios are in excess or deficient. Thus, calculation and adjustments in either of those deficiency's can be made, (if any exist), bringing the sample back into "secular equilibrium".

Additionally, the isochron technique, which I know has also been misrepresented in the YEC literature, but that's another story, can be used to make the same adjustments. And I didn't even mention "thermal ionisation mass spectrometry" or multi-collector inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry".

In conclusion, what you see in the YEC literature concerning dating methods is analogous to a high school drop-out performing quadruple bypass heart surgery? It doesn't happen that way. And NO! The YEC literature in describing dating methods is not just another opinion. It is deliberately misrepresented material specifically designed to influence laypeople who have no intention of fact checking anything into believing something that is not true. What's next, a campaign to show that telescopes and probes throughout the solar system are unreliable sources in demonstrating that the sun is the center of the solar system rather than the earth. Ask yourself, would Jesus approve of such practices?

Subduction Zone said:

Here is an article that may help you to understand:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/...c-dating-methods-makes-untenable-assumptions/

Click to expand...

Thanks for suggesting I read the article listed below! It is well written and I did enjoy reading it.

Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”

Does this mean that I am ready to embrace Radiometric Dating? Not yet, because I have the following alternatives:

1. Wait for additional scientific discoveries that will support my Christian Views.
2. Adopt the Gap Theory of the interpretation of origins. I call this my Golden Parachute.
3. Reject the Radiometric Dating as providing APPARENT DATES. You may wonder what right I have to do this. My reasoning is as follows: If Dawkins can look at the evidence for Design in nature and label it as APPEARANCE OF DESIGN, this gives me the same right.

“Dawkins is an outspoken critic of intelligent design (ID). In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins defined biology as "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." …”

Ref.:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_the_science_of_richard_dawk005579.html

Even if I were ready to accept the deep time and dates associated with it, I would be forced to accept the conclusions by blind faith, since I am not a trained biologist nor geologist.

Nic Samojluk said:

Thanks for suggesting I read the article listed below! It is well written and I did enjoy reading it.

Refuting “Radiometric Dating Methods Makes Untenable Assumptions!”

Does this mean that I am ready to embrace Radiometric Dating? Not yet, because I have the following alternatives:

1. Wait for additional scientific discoveries that will support my Christian Views.

Click to expand...

In other words you are now admitting that you are being unreasonable. And your views are not "Christian views". Most Christians worldwide accept the theory of evolution.

1. Adopt the Gap Theory of the interpretation of origins. I call this my Golden Parachute.

Click to expand...

There is no "Gap Theory". That is an abuse of the word "Theory". Here is a question, what reasonable test would show that theory to be wrong if it was wrong?

1. Reject the Radiometric Dating as providing APPARENT DATES. You may wonder what right I have to do this. My reasoning is as follows: If Dawkins can look at the evidence for Design in nature and label it as APPEARANCE OF DESIGN, this gives me the same right.

“Dawkins is an outspoken critic of intelligent design (ID). In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins defined biology as "the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." …”

Ref.:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_the_science_of_richard_dawk005579.html

Click to expand...

But there is no "evidence of design". You are misquoting him, please not he said "give the appearance..". He said nothing about there being actual evidence. You need to learn what scientific evidence is, then you will not make this rather basic mistake. So all in all you have only admitted to ignorance and having no valid reasons for not accepting the theory of evolution. Not believing something merely because you don't like its personal implications is extremely foolish.

Nic Samojluk said:

Ref.:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_the_science_of_richard_dawk005579.html

Click to expand...

Evolution news even picked a website name that would lie in the title so that creationists will believe them.

Mr Strawberry said:

'According to the bible'... are words that can precede any old cobblers, and your quote is a case in point.

Click to expand...

I'd say. It's a passage often quoted but seldom in context. Let's see what the context yields?

The Pulpit Commentary:
'Verse 1. - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. An atheism is here depicted which goes beyond even that of Psalm 10. There the existence of God was not so much denied as his providence. Here his existence is not only denied, but denied in the very depths of the man's heart. He has contrived to convince himself of what he so much wishes. The psalmist regards such a state of mind as indicative of that utter perversity and folly which is implied in the term nabal (נָבַל). They are corrupt; literally, they have corrupted themselves (comp. Gen 6:12; Judges 2:19). Their atheism is accompanied by deep moral corruption. We have no right to say that this is always so; but the tendency of atheism to relax moral restraints is indisputable. They have done abominable works (comp. vers. 3 and 4). There is none that doeth good; i.e. none among them. The psalmist does not intend his words to apply to the whole human race. He has in his mind a, " righteous generation" (ver. 5), "God's people" (ver. 4), whom he sets over against the wicked, both in this psalm and elsewhere universally (see Psalm 1:1-3; Psalm 2:12; Psalm 3:8; Psalm 4:3, etc.). '*

* http://biblehub.com/psalms/14-1.htm (careful if you read it, you might just end up becoming a believer in God)

Loudmouth said:

I have always found that to be an . . . . interesting comment. If I replaced the word God with Thor in that same passage, and you read it, would you become a believer in Thor? Probably not, right? If it wouldn't convince you to believe in a god you presently don't believe in, why do you think it would convince us?

Click to expand...

Because the bible is a supernatural Book, and Its Author says ...[VERSE=Romans 10:17,KJV]So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[/VERSE]

So reading It just might generate some faith in you.

In addition It says: [VERSE=Isaiah 55:11,KJV]So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.[/VERSE]

Loudmouth said:

That verse was written by a human, not a supernatural deity.

Click to expand...

Sure the whole Bible was written by humans. So?