"Embedded Age" Requires Fake Fossils

[Nic Samojluk]

Yes, creationists have a habit of woefully misinterpreting factual information.

Evolutionists have developed a similar weakness! Data that does not fit the expected outcome is often thrown into the trash.

 

[lasthero]

Lik

Evolutionists have developed a similar weakness! Data that does not fit the expected outcome is often thrown into the trash.

Examples?

 

[RickG]

For example the Amino Acid Racemization Dating technique. Some years ago an expert in dating fossils held that said dating method was independent of other dating methods, and an expert in another field of inquiry stuck to his guns that the AARD method was calibrated with the carbon 14 and prevailed. This means that expertise does not warranty the outcome in a debate.

That's quite interesting that you would bring that method up. Are you aware that that is a "relative" dating method and not an absolute one, and do you know the difference between the two. I agree that there are problems with that method, however again, keep in mind that it is a "relative" dating method primarily for getting a general idea of site age of stratigraphy, of which thermal history is key. Also, this is not a method I am that familiar with, though I am quite aware of it and what it is primary use is for as well as the geochemistry of its inter-workings. Frankly I don't understand what your mentioning of carbon 14 has to do with it with respect to calibration. Again, it is a relative dating method, not an absolute one as carbon 14 is. May I ask your source for this information and what the exact complaint is. Thank you.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

But the most likely answer is that you did not understand the list.

I could have misunderstood some of he items on the list, but it is unlikely that I did misunderstand the entire list!

Are you suggesting that dating techniques are not based on underlying assumptions? Have you taken the time to consider those assumptions?
If the foundation does not rest on solid ground, then you are likely to get the wrong conclusion.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

May I ask your source for this information and what the exact complaint is.

Amino Acid Racemization Dating

Is not an independent dating technique. It must be calibrated by carbon 14 method. I carbon 14 is wrong, then the date becomes unreliable.



More: http://docslide.us/documents/amino-acid-racemization-dating.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example the Amino Acid Racemization Dating technique. Some years ago an expert in dating fossils held that said dating method was independent of other dating methods, and an expert in another field of inquiry stuck to his guns that the AARD method was calibrated with the carbon 14 and prevailed. This means that expertise does not warranty the outcome in a debate.

Hmm, interesting new method of dating. It still can be used for only very recent fossils. You can go past the dates one can get for C14 but anything beyond a million years does not seem to be possible for this method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could have misunderstood some of he items on the list, but it is unlikely that I did misunderstand the entire list!

Are you suggesting that dating techniques are not based on underlying assumptions? Have you taken the time to consider those assumptions?
If the foundation does not rest on solid ground, then you are likely to get the wrong conclusion.

Yes, I even explained what some people might mistakenly call an assumption. The assumptions are very few and is not anywhere near as high as 20. Also if you can't even remember what these supposed assumptions are then that list is even below worthless. It is a waste of time to mention it.

I tell you what, try to bring these assumptions up one at a time and I will see if I can help you to understand them.

 

[davedajobauk]

Maybe we should not lean upon our own undesrstanding

Maybe we should 'read' some more

Who is Taylor ?



http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/12/tayloring-christianity

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amino Acid Racemization Dating

Is not an independent dating technique. It must be calibrated by carbon 14 method. I carbon 14 is wrong, then the date becomes unreliable.



More: http://docslide.us/documents/amino-acid-racemization-dating.html

Why would you think that C14 dating is wrong? It has been tested by several means.

 

[RickG]

I could have misunderstood some of he items on the list, but it is unlikely that I did misunderstand the entire list!

Are you suggesting that dating techniques are not based on underlying assumptions? Have you taken the time to consider those assumptions?
If the foundation does not rest on solid ground, then you are likely to get the wrong conclusion.

In deed they are Nic. However, as Subjunction Zone has previously pointed out to you, assumptions are not just literally assumed. There are techniques to test and verify that those assumption are valid. Dating a rock or organic material is not just blindly dated with an assumption that there is no contamination or excess daughter isotopes present. There are very precise methods for detecting any contamination and quantifying it if it exists. What you see in the creation science literature is extracts from actual dating method text books where "assumptions" are itemized. This is so students can understand what must be understood, accounted for and quantified. What the creation science material does not reveal is the methods and techniques that are used to validate those assumptions. Again, that is my problem with creation science. What is the purpose of deliberately misleading how actual dating techniques work? To me, and I am a not only a Christian, but a contributing church member,and I am quite troubled with that community that sees the need to misrepresent well known and understood science. That tells me that their interpretation of the bible is lacking faith. Otherwise why would they do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In deed they are Nic. However, as Subjunction Zone has previously pointed out to you, assumptions are not just literally assumed. There are techniques to test and verify that those assumption are valid. Dating a rock or organic material is not just blindly dated with an assumption that there is no contamination or excess daughter isotopes present. There are very precise methods for detecting any contamination and quantifying it if it exists. What you see in the creation science literature is extracts from actual dating method text books where "assumptions" are itemized. This is so students can understand what must be understood, accounted for and quantified. What the creation science material does not reveal is the methods and techniques that are used to validate those assumptions. Again, that is my problem with creation science. What is the purpose of deliberately misleading how actual dating techniques work? To me, and I am a not only a Christian, but a contributing church member,and I am quite troubled with that community that sees the need to misrepresent well known and understood science. That tells me that their interpretation of the bible is lacking faith. Otherwise why would they do it?

Worse yet when creationists try to use radiometric dating they will purposefully do tests that make the test of no use at all. The first time they did this they used C14 dating on a fossil that was painted with shellac as a preservative. If you know how shellac is made you would instantly see why they got a bad result. Yet for years they tried to use this test to claim "C14 does not work".

 

[RickG]

Worse yet when creationists try to use radiometric dating they will purposefully do tests that make the test of no use at all. The first time they did this they used C14 dating on a fossil that was painted with shellac as a preservative. If you know how shellac is made you would instantly see why they got a bad result. Yet for years they tried to use this test to claim "C14 does not work".

One thread currently running that I started (in this forum) is about in situ 14C which can not only be easily detected, it has very practical uses in the earth sciences based on its composition and relation to any atmospheric cosmogenic 14C. So far there has been no young earth proponent participation. Probably because the creation science literature avoids it like the plague. It also has only come into prominent use in the past 10 years. Science is always advancing.

 

[RickG]

Why would you think that C14 dating is wrong? It has been tested by several means.

Actually Amino Acid Diagenesis, or racemisation, has absolutely nothing to do with carbon 14 dating, nor is it calibrated by it, rather it is an analysis of certain protein residues that are time dependent and useful only with Quaternary fossils with respect to chronology. I guess this is why I haven't received an answer as of yet from Nic concerning my inquiry as to what 14C has to do with the method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually Amino Acid Diagenesis, or racemisation, has absolutely nothing to do with carbon 14 dating, nor is it calibrated by it, rather it is an analysis of certain protein residues that are time dependent and useful only with Quaternary fossils with respect to chronology. I guess this is why I haven't received an answer as of yet from Nic concerning my inquiry as to what 14C has to do with the method.

Thank you for the clarification. This is the first that I have ever heard of this dating method. To me it seems rather obvious that it is still of use in only rather recent fossils. Nothing past a million years would seem to be datable by this method, am I correct in that conclusion?

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolutionists have developed a similar weakness! Data that does not fit the expected outcome is often thrown into the trash.

How often?

 

[RickG]

Thank you for the clarification. This is the first that I have ever heard of this dating method. To me it seems rather obvious that it is still of use in only rather recent fossils. Nothing past a million years would seem to be datable by this method, am I correct in that conclusion?

From my understanding that is pretty much so, 1 million years and generally much much less. However, depending upon latitude and temperature history, it can exceed that because of its temperature dependence with a doubling of the rate for every 4 deg. C. Of course this is very well correlated, or if you prefer, calibrated with TL dates and magnetostratigraphy and MOI stratigraphic framework.

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Examples?

The Evolutionary Tree Failed But Evolutionists Still Insist Evolution is a Fact
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionary-tree-failed-but.html

 

[Gene2memE]

The Evolutionary Tree Failed But Evolutionists Still Insist Evolution is a Fact
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionary-tree-failed-but.html

That article is such a dishonest example of quotemining, omission and deliberate misinformation its a wonder that you have the bald faced cheek to even link to it.

The Telegraph article it is based on contains this sentence: "Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe."

Its evolutionary biologist that are doing this work. Not creationist.

It evolutionary biologist that are furthering or understanding of the history of life. Not creationists l.

The fact that the picture is more complicated than we thought 150 years ago is unsurprising. The table of elements is also more complicated than we thought 150 years ago. That doesn't invalidate atomic theory.

 

[dad]

It is worthless in a debate. And once again, they probably are not assumptions. Did you not understand my explanation of how the initial amount of daughter product in K/Ar dating is not assumed?

The initial amount when our nature started doesn't matter. You do not know that do you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The initial amount when our nature started doesn't matter. You do not know that do you?

If you want to claim a "different state" the burden of proof is upon you. Until then as usual you lose.