If Carbon Dating is wrong... then what to replace it with?

[Astrid]

You ignore that the differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines.

Of course the most significant issue with your timeline is that there is no physical evidence to support a world wide flood at any time when humanity existed.

And there is evidence of a flood from before?

 

[Shemjaza]

And there is from before?

I haven't recently looked up the specifics, but I believe there is evidence for the whole planet being covered with ice and water... but this was before complicated life even developed in the sea let alone 4 to 10 thousand years ago.

 

[Astrid]

I haven't recently looked up the specifics, but I believe there is evidence for the whole planet being covered with ice and water... but this was before complicated life even developed in the sea let alone 4 to 10 thousand years ago.

Enough for a hypothesis.
NASA GISS: Research Features: "Snowball Earth" Might Have Been Slushy

Of course that much ice would greatly lower sea level.

In the event, hardly a Noah's ark deal.

More to the point is not the lack of physical evidence of" flood"
but the enormous body of data from all the " hard" sciences that.disprove
"flood" 10,000 times over.
The sort of thing someone trying to instruct about the science
of earth history might want to acquaint himself with.

 

[Shemjaza]

Enough for a hypothesis.
NASA GISS: Research Features: "Snowball Earth" Might Have Been Slushy

Of course that much ice would greatly lower sea level.

In the event, hardly a Noah's ark deal.

More to the point is not the lack of physical evidence of" flood"
but the enormous body of data from all the " hard" sciences that.disprove
"flood" 10,000 times over.
The sort of thing someone trying to instruct about the science
of earth history might want to acquaint himself with.

I try to head off counter arguments about "You said there was no evidence of a world wide flood, but science says THIS!".

The lack of a world wide flood is the very least of the Ark narrative issues when it comes to physical evidence.

 

[Astrid]

I try to head off counter arguments about "You said there was no evidence of a world wide flood, but science says THIS!".

The lack of a world wide flood is the very least of the Ark narrative issues when it comes to physical evidence.

Oh, sure. There's always, "Howcome clams on Mt Everest"?

One such said there's proof they were buried alive up
there, coz the shells are closed!

Now naturally, open v closed is not make or break
for "flood" but ever being wrong on anything
is, for a creationist.

So my pointing out that a buried clam cannot
open it's shell, and that any clam digger knows
most of the whole- looking clams are full of
sand made no difference.
It was proof of buried alive by flood, to him.

Of course he, like other such also doesn't get
it that one disproof cancels all other evidence,
in science or court of law.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Actually, I do not ignore "differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines"

There are multiple examples of severely conflicting radiometric dating measurements that severely contradict one another. A classic example is a basalt formation in Queensland, AU. This basalt flow completely encased some trees. The basalt dates with K-Ar to dates between 39 to 58 Million years while the completely encased wood dates to 29000 to 44000 years ago. Both the wood and the basalt were tested with multiple samples in multiple laboratories. This is hardly "overlap and support". You can read the paper.
Conflicting "Ages" of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia: Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D

Another classic example is the dating of the new cone on the top of Mount Saint Helens. When the new cone was just ten years old, rock samples dated 340,000 years old.
Here is the paper:
Austin, Steven A. 1996. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 10 (3): 335-343.

This is not the only example. The same has happened in Hawaii. Hawaiian lava flows on the big island that are 200 years old date 2.96 million years old.

I do not ignore supporting dating methods. I do however acknowledge that dating methods give impossible results much more often than the evolutionary community is willing to admit.

The problem is the assumptions made for dating cannot be correct. In the case of K=>Ar, the assumption is that Ar bubbles out of the lava while it is hot and so that the entrapped Ar is a product of K decomposition. See the paper
Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase as a recorder of magmatic processes Paul W. Layer and James E. Gardner

So if very recent rock samples give K=>Ar dates in the millions of years, why should we assume that any rocks dated with the exact same methods are actually millions of years old?

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

If you would like some very easy evidence for a worldwide flood, just go onto google maps and satellite view. Now look at most of the world's big rivers. Start with the St. Lawrence river and look at the massive 50 mile wide river valley between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The river valley eroded this 50 mile wide canyon all the way through the Grand Banks out to the continental shelf. Imagine the massive river flowing into an ocean with a much lower sea level. The present river partially fills the canyon with sediment at the present sea level
Next, look at the Ganges river in India. A large delta exists off the continental shelf, and way upstream at the present sea level exists another delta partially filling in the older massive river valley.
Check out the Indus river. This river canyon (the part we see today) looks a lot like the Grand Canyon, although much smaller as it crosses a very arid landscape. Under the existing ocean, the river used to flow right out to the continental shelf.
Now that you know what you are looking for, check out the Columbia river, or the Fraser river, or many others.
There is significant and very simple evidence that many of the world's rivers were much more massive in the past than they are today, and that the ocean levels were much lower when these massive rivers all drained into that much lower ocean.
Now the question - what long time process (millions of years) could possibly carve the massive canyons and then not gradually fill up the canyons with sediment as the ocean levels slowly rose to present levels? This is not possible.
The rivers must have been very massive and then as the ocean filled rapidly, the much smaller rivers deposited new sediment deltas at present sea levels. This looks like a world-wide flood to me.

 

[Astrid]

If you would like some very easy evidence for a worldwide flood, just go onto google maps and satellite view. Now look at most of the world's big rivers. Start with the St. Lawrence river and look at the massive 50 mile wide river valley between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The river valley eroded this 50 mile wide canyon all the way through the Grand Banks out to the continental shelf. Imagine the massive river flowing into an ocean with a much lower sea level. The present river partially fills the canyon with sediment at the present sea level
Next, look at the Ganges river in India. A large delta exists off the continental shelf, and way upstream at the present sea level exists another delta partially filling in the older massive river valley.
Check out the Indus river. This river canyon (the part we see today) looks a lot like the Grand Canyon, although much smaller as it crosses a very arid landscape. Under the existing ocean, the river used to flow right out to the continental shelf.
Now that you know what you are looking for, check out the Columbia river, or the Fraser river, or many others.
There is significant and very simple evidence that many of the world's rivers were much more massive in the past than they are today, and that the ocean levels were much lower when these massive rivers all drained into that much lower ocean.
Now the question - what long time process (millions of years) could possibly carve the massive canyons and then not gradually fill up the canyons with sediment as the ocean levels slowly rose to present levels? This is not possible.
The rivers must have been very massive and then as the ocean filled rapidly, the much smaller rivers deposited new sediment deltas at present sea levels. This looks like a world-wide flood to me.

No doubt that is how it looks to you.
If one wanted to give an example to define " facile"
your post would be fine.

I wonder a bit at the transcendent arrogance of
a personwho not only believes he has the one
True interpretation the onlyT rue religion, AND,
thro no study or understanding at all, has come
to know more science than any scientist on earth.

Is that why some believers are called that,
because of uncanny ability to just believe things?

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

So if my explanation is too trivial and facile for you, what do propose carved 50 mile wide canyons right out to the continental shelf all over the world?

 

[Astrid]

So if my explanation is too trivial and facile for you, what do propose carved 50 mile wide canyons right out to the continental shelf all over the world?

I don't just "believe" you've
no clue what you are talking about.
I'd be embarrassed to blather
about basketball or how
to fly a jet .

I don't understand people so unselfaware
as to not even know they are blathering.

 

[AV1611VET]

... but the enormous body of data from all the "hard" sciences that disprove "flood" 10,000 times over.

Only ten thousand?

Is that all?

There could be twenty thousand bodies of data for what it's worth, and we'd still believe the Flood occurred as documented.

After all, if there was so much evidence against it, why would God document it as such?

Unless, of course, He knows more about it than all of us combined do.

 

[sjastro]

Actually, I do not ignore "differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines"

There are multiple examples of severely conflicting radiometric dating measurements that severely contradict one another. A classic example is a basalt formation in Queensland, AU. This basalt flow completely encased some trees. The basalt dates with K-Ar to dates between 39 to 58 Million years while the completely encased wood dates to 29000 to 44000 years ago. Both the wood and the basalt were tested with multiple samples in multiple laboratories. This is hardly "overlap and support". You can read the paper.
Conflicting "Ages" of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia: Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D

Another classic example is the dating of the new cone on the top of Mount Saint Helens. When the new cone was just ten years old, rock samples dated 340,000 years old.
Here is the paper:
Austin, Steven A. 1996. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 10 (3): 335-343.

This is not the only example. The same has happened in Hawaii. Hawaiian lava flows on the big island that are 200 years old date 2.96 million years old.

I do not ignore supporting dating methods. I do however acknowledge that dating methods give impossible results much more often than the evolutionary community is willing to admit.

The problem is the assumptions made for dating cannot be correct. In the case of K=>Ar, the assumption is that Ar bubbles out of the lava while it is hot and so that the entrapped Ar is a product of K decomposition. See the paper
Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase as a recorder of magmatic processes Paul W. Layer and James E. Gardner

So if very recent rock samples give K=>Ar dates in the millions of years, why should we assume that any rocks dated with the exact same methods are actually millions of years old?

Cherry picking anomalies and boldly claiming the dating procedure is suspect without considering the geological formation process itself is a clear indication of confirmation bias.

And how do you explain the consistency of different dating systems where K-Ar dating is not used such as in the case of meteorites?

​

I assume you are a YEC and since this is a science forum provide us with the supporting evidence.
Claiming the dating systems are based on false assumptions doesn't support YEC and is a false dichotomy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course he, like other such also doesn't get
it that one disproof cancels all other evidence, in science or court of law.

Unless, of course, that "one proof" could be interpreted in such a way as to make it acceptable in the courts and sciences.

You know? like the duck-bill platypus?

According to Wikipedia, even finding a rabbit in the Precambrian wouldn't "cancel all other evidence."

And even a jillion pieces of evidence against evolution isn't going to cancel out evolution.

You know? like a jillion missing links?

And how many of the ten Icons of Evolution are still valid today?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.

Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.

Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.

What do you think it should be replaced with?

Bear in mind, this is for those people who do not think that carbon dating is worthwhile.

Why cherry pick carbon dating? It's ok if it proves biblical history( dead sea scrolls etc ) but it's not OK if it directs us to more factual knowledge? There is a mystery and no one knows it all.

 

[Shemjaza]

Actually, I do not ignore "differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines"

There are multiple examples of severely conflicting radiometric dating measurements that severely contradict one another. A classic example is a basalt formation in Queensland, AU. This basalt flow completely encased some trees. The basalt dates with K-Ar to dates between 39 to 58 Million years while the completely encased wood dates to 29000 to 44000 years ago. Both the wood and the basalt were tested with multiple samples in multiple laboratories. This is hardly "overlap and support". You can read the paper.
Conflicting "Ages" of Tertiary Basalt and Contained Fossilized Wood, Crinum, Central Queensland, Australia: Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D

Another classic example is the dating of the new cone on the top of Mount Saint Helens. When the new cone was just ten years old, rock samples dated 340,000 years old.
Here is the paper:
Austin, Steven A. 1996. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 10 (3): 335-343.

This is not the only example. The same has happened in Hawaii. Hawaiian lava flows on the big island that are 200 years old date 2.96 million years old.

I do not ignore supporting dating methods. I do however acknowledge that dating methods give impossible results much more often than the evolutionary community is willing to admit.

The problem is the assumptions made for dating cannot be correct. In the case of K=>Ar, the assumption is that Ar bubbles out of the lava while it is hot and so that the entrapped Ar is a product of K decomposition. See the paper
Excess argon in Mount St. Helens plagioclase as a recorder of magmatic processes Paul W. Layer and James E. Gardner

So if very recent rock samples give K=>Ar dates in the millions of years, why should we assume that any rocks dated with the exact same methods are actually millions of years old?

Interestingly classic examples.

Andrew Snelling spent years and years simultaneously publishing professional geological papers about standard geological processes and timelines while simultaneously stating that the same structures were created by miraculous water events less than 10000 years ago. This demonstrates that he was dishonest at the very least... not a great sign.

But regardless his example that the much younger tree must have been enveloped by the basalt and even more ancient siltstone rather than grew through them is completely illogical.

I may not have Dr. Snelling's experience or qualifications... but I do work with silt, sitlstone and weathered basalt and you could break them up with your hands, so I'm perfectly willing to accept that tree roots and other effects could break them up and leave embedded plant matter.

(Snelling himself even points out that if the leaf had been present in the formation of the basalt it would have been destroyed by the temperature).


Steven Austin incompetently or dishonestly misused the K=>Ar tests at Mt St. Hellens simply ignored that the majority of his test results that showed his results were invalid and presented the one anomalous result.


If these are legitimate scientific endeavors why are they not submitted for actual geological peer review? Dr Snelling as a published mining geologist is clearly willing to admit to geological processes, but his creationist publication is only edited by... him.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I don't just "believe" you've
no clue what you are talking about.
I'd be embarrassed to blather
about basketball or how
to fly a jet .

I don't understand people so unselfaware
as to not even know they are blathering.

Hi Estrid! I put my 2 cents in carbon dating which I fully trust.
Anyway, just saying hello !

 

[Shemjaza]

If you would like some very easy evidence for a worldwide flood, just go onto google maps and satellite view. Now look at most of the world's big rivers. Start with the St. Lawrence river and look at the massive 50 mile wide river valley between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The river valley eroded this 50 mile wide canyon all the way through the Grand Banks out to the continental shelf. Imagine the massive river flowing into an ocean with a much lower sea level. The present river partially fills the canyon with sediment at the present sea level
Next, look at the Ganges river in India. A large delta exists off the continental shelf, and way upstream at the present sea level exists another delta partially filling in the older massive river valley.
Check out the Indus river. This river canyon (the part we see today) looks a lot like the Grand Canyon, although much smaller as it crosses a very arid landscape. Under the existing ocean, the river used to flow right out to the continental shelf.
Now that you know what you are looking for, check out the Columbia river, or the Fraser river, or many others.
There is significant and very simple evidence that many of the world's rivers were much more massive in the past than they are today, and that the ocean levels were much lower when these massive rivers all drained into that much lower ocean.
Now the question - what long time process (millions of years) could possibly carve the massive canyons and then not gradually fill up the canyons with sediment as the ocean levels slowly rose to present levels? This is not possible.
The rivers must have been very massive and then as the ocean filled rapidly, the much smaller rivers deposited new sediment deltas at present sea levels. This looks like a world-wide flood to me.

A much more logical explanation is that while yes the rivers have been more massive periodically they are definitely not evidence for a world wide flood.

A world wide flood of water deeper than the oceans of the Earth would have destroyed all the delicate layering found all over the world and mixed all the layers together.

We would not have preserved annual water structures or insitu fossils. We would not have separate ecosystems found in the same region and we certainly wouldn't have siltstone layers forming below igneous.

 

[Dennis_Hogg]

Cherry picking anomalies and boldly claiming the dating procedure is suspect without considering the geological formation process itself is a clear indication of confirmation bias.

In science - that is real science - the objective of observation and experimentation is to prove a hypothesis wrong. Good science with real logic makes predictions and develops tests to disprove a hypothesis. (Bad logic establishes a favorable outcome and then seeks supporting proof.)
One good counter-example proves a hypothesis wrong in real science. There are many more than one. I cited three. When a counter-example is available, it should be used to modify or reject the hypothesis.
Those that would reject the counter-examples and try to cling to the data that might support their belief are not actually doing good science.

 

[Shemjaza]

In science - that is real science - the objective of observation and experimentation is to prove a hypothesis wrong. Good science with real logic makes predictions and develops tests to disprove a hypothesis. (Bad logic establishes a favorable outcome and then seeks supporting proof.)
One good counter-example proves a hypothesis wrong in real science. There are many more than one. I cited three. When a counter-example is available, it should be used to modify or reject the hypothesis.
Those that would reject the counter-examples and try to cling to the data that might support their belief are not actually doing good science.

If I read a bunch of articles about how "used by" dates were totally unreliable... then found out that in the stated examples the writer hadn't put the milk in the fridge for 4 days, I'd be suspect any other data they claimed supported their point of view.

Especially when I found out that when they weren't writing for chillingfoodisalie.blogspot.com they were working as a refrigerator salesman.

 

[Astrid]

Hi Estrid! I put my 2 cents in carbon dating which I fully trust.
Anyway, just saying hello !

Hi to you.

" Fully trust" maybe be excessive, but the spurious/ignorant/woo woo
"issues" brought up (cut n paste from creationist sites) are not why.