The Day the Dinosaurs Died

[Jimmy D]

So if I actually dig through the complicated chemistry (I kind of find chemistry boring) involved in this, no one really is capable of answering any questions or discussing it...they are just going to send me to scientists they believe make sense and trash the scientists I believe make sense? (or worse...wiki)

There are plenty of threads on radiometric dating, with contributions from qualified geologists.

 

[blackribbon]

No, we have thousands of measurements, from different methods, confirming the same ages. You asked what we are using to calibrate the original measurements? Well, in addition to the confirmtion across methods, many of the younger methods are also confirmed by historical records. For instance, carbon 14 testing of a book dated 1209 gives that age, etc. The same goes for dendrochronology - such as the dating of wood from a church built in 688 gives that age, etc. And then those two methods agree with others that reach back farther,

In Christ-

Papias

Okay...this is the kind of evidence I am looking for. I know that carbon dating can only go back so far before it starts to become inaccurate or there is just no more carbon to measure. Which is why radiometric dating is used.

Why are they so sure that they can accurately measure things that date back before we have a written record to prove their accuracy? There must be an age where the reliability of each test become questionable. How do they determine this age?

Also, how are they sure that the radioactive decay of these isotopes is constant and continuous over great periods of time?

And again, what is your expertise in this area?

 

[blackribbon]

There are plenty of threads on radiometric dating, with contributions from qualified geologists.

So you really don't want to debate this .... and I am free to use the qualified geologists of my choosing. Which includes AIG and ICR. Because I found most of all their info to be credible and logical.

 

[Colter]

Okay...this is the kind of evidence I am looking for. I know that carbon dating can only go back so far before it starts to become inaccurate or there is just no more carbon to measure. Which is why radiometric dating is used.

Why are they so sure that they can accurately measure things that date back before we have a written record to prove their accuracy? There must be an age where the reliability of each test become questionable. How do they determine this age?

Also, how are they sure that the radioactive decay of these isotopes is constant and continuous over great periods of time?

And again, what is your expertise in this area?

If decay rates aren't a constant then you wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant.

 

[Jimmy D]

So you really don't want to debate this .... and I am free to use the qualified geologists of my choosing. Which includes AIG and ICR. Because I found most of all their info to be credible and logical.

Well, to be honest I started the thread because I saw an interesting documentary last night.

I'm not really interested in a game of pigeon chess with a layman who thinks they can overturn well established and evidenced scientific facts.

The only geologist I can see on AIG is Dr Andrew A Snelling, do you trust his opinion?

 

[Colter]

 

[AirPo]

Why would you discuss a topic without reading or watching at least one of the referenced articles since they were what this thread is about.....

Personally, I have seen a moving bat HIT a moving baseball...it wasn't just a collision....

A double?

 

[blackribbon]

LOL good question, I thought about that as I wrote it, hence the asterisk at the bottom of the quote. I would guess that it's because they're unfussy scavengers and can go for long periods with out food?

or maybe it is a bad assumption because it defies logic...

No, I don't blindly believe stuff on science.

There are two types of disbelief in ideas that are proposed.

In one case, the scientific community is not in consensus on the topic. In that case, it's reasonable to come to a conclusion either way, and argue it.

In the other case, the scientific community has reached consensus on a topic, based on millions of pieces of evidence. In that case, to take the other position reasonably requires one to become an expert in the field (including getting a degree), then study thousands of pieces of evidence for decades, and make arguments based on the evidence. To disagree with the scientific consensus without doing all that makes one a crackpot, a crybaby, a liar, or simply an irrational and ignorant person.

Science as reached a consensus on evolution, our common ancestry with all life, and the geologic time scale, just as they have with other basic facts, like gravity, the spherical earth, atoms, & germs. To agree with the scientific consensus on any of those doesn't require one to have any scientific credentials (which is why I'm not claiming any). To disagree with any of them requires the work in the blue text above.

If you disagree with that, you can start by telling me why you accept the scientific "theory" of atoms.

Just as importantly, do you now start to see how the different dating methods confirm each other?

In Christ-

Papias

Science by popular vote, sure...that has worked so well over the years, like when the earth was considered the center of the earth and life was believed to spontaneously appear from non-life.

I have seen plenty of evidence to prove the Bible to be a book of truth...and I have also seen plenty of science that goes against the common beliefs of the time. I don't blindly believe science. I have faith that it will prove itself if it true.

I don't know that I do accept the theory of atoms. I have never seen an atom or an atom in action. If someone suddenly came up with a new plausible theory for mass, it really wouldn't turn my world upside down. I am not married to it just because it was in some text book I had to read. I also don't care enough to explore it deeper.

I completely disagree with the concept of macro evolution. No one can even come up with a plausible explanation for the origin of life from non-living material. To believe that life can come from some chemical reaction or other non-living matter is completely UNscientific. Life comes from life. God is life so life coming from God is very much believable and it fits the scientific model.

Also, to assume that non-life suddenly jumped in to existence and turned into the extremely complicated form of simple bacteria also defies logic. That requires a lot of faith in the unknown and that is basically the definition of religion. I pick where I chose to trust my blind faith based on my experiences and someone else can choose to believe that "something magical happens" and suddenly there was life.

 

[blackribbon]

If decay rates aren't a constant then you wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant.

I don't live near a nuclear power plant ... and although I don't really worry about it, I don't know that they have been declared completely safe....

And why do we assume that the decay rates are constant over millions of years or that time has been constant.... maybe an astroid hit and changed the rotational rate of the earth .... which would short or length how much time passed in a year (one trip around the sun).

 

[blackribbon]

Well, to be honest I started the thread because I saw an interesting documentary last night.

I'm not really interested in a game of pigeon chess with a layman who thinks they can overturn well established and evidenced scientific facts.

The only geologist I can see on AIG is Dr Andrew A Snelling, do you trust his opinion?

You posted this in DEBATES AND DISCUSSIONS....not the "look I watched an interesting movie last night" section...

and thanks for insulting my intelligence just because I don't agree with the experts you blindly believe...and even more interesting because you don't appear to have any expertise in science academically or professionally. I am supposed to just believe you because you believe the scientist that "everybody" believes ... science was never taught to me as a field of majority rule.

I don't know if I trust Dr Snelling but I do trust AIG so that is a starting place. It was you who told me to quit jumping around so I had tried to focus on radiometric dating...something that needs to be true or else all other dating gets thrown out of the window...

You win. This isn't a thread intended to expand anyone's mind through intelligent discussion or debate. And I seem to be the only one with an open mind even trying to understand other theories....

Again, science isn't "majority rule". And I will take my lame little brain and let it sleep so that I can keep my patients from dying tonight...and other unimportant things like that.

 

[blackribbon]

A double?

depends on how good the outfielders are...

 

[Jimmy D]

Science by popular vote, sure...that has worked so well over the years, like when the earth was considered the center of the earth and life was believed to spontaneously appear from non-life.

I have seen plenty of evidence to prove the Bible to be a book of truth...and I have also seen plenty of science that goes against the common beliefs of the time. I don't blindly believe science. I have faith that it will prove itself if it true.

I don't know that I do accept the theory of atoms. I have never seen an atom or an atom in action. If someone suddenly came up with a new plausible theory for mass, it really wouldn't turn my world upside down. I am not married to it just because it was in some text book I had to read. I also don't care enough to explore it deeper.

I completely disagree with the concept of macro evolution. No one can even come up with a plausible explanation for the origin of life from non-living material. To believe that life can come from some chemical reaction or other non-living matter is completely UNscientific. Life comes from life. God is life so life coming from God is very much believable and it fits the scientific model.

Also, to assume that non-life suddenly jumped in to existence and turned into the extremely complicated form of simple bacteria also defies logic. That requires a lot of faith in the unknown and that is basically the definition of religion. I pick where I chose to trust my blind faith based on my experiences and someone else can choose to believe that "something magical happens" and suddenly there was life.

Scientific consensus is not science by popular vote. As for the rest of your post....You've been spending too much time on anti-science propaganda sites by the looks of it.

 

[blackribbon]

watching this would mean that the same sea fossils found at the top of mt everest would also be on the top layers of rock down at the bottom...because the whole top layers of the mountain would have all been at the bottom of some ocean?

 

[blackribbon]

Scientific consensus is not science by popular vote. As for the rest of your post....You've been spending too much time on anti-science propaganda sites by the looks of it.

again...name calling with no evidence....

how terribly scientific...

(do you not understand that the very basics of all science is to doubt everything until it is proven....otherwise, nobody ever learns anything new)

 

[JackRT]

I don't live near a nuclear power plant ... and although I don't really worry about it, I don't know that they have been declared completely safe....

And why do we assume that the decay rates are constant over millions of years or that time has been constant.... maybe an astroid hit and changed the rotational rate of the earth .... which would short or length how much time passed in a year (one trip around the sun).

When I taught at McMaster University my office was about 25m from the concrete dome over the research reactor. The radiation level inside the dome was lower than in my office. You see, the concrete dome blocked cosmic radiation much better than the structure of my building and the radiation from the reactor was extremely well shielded. I understand that airline pilots are now being monitored for cosmic ray exposure. Can anyone confirm that?

 

[Colter]

I don't live near a nuclear power plant ... and although I don't really worry about it, I don't know that they have been declared completely safe....

And why do we assume that the decay rates are constant over millions of years or that time has been constant.... maybe an astroid hit and changed the rotational rate of the earth .... which would short or length how much time passed in a year (one trip around the sun).

Decay rates have nothing to do with the earths rotation. We can compare isotopes from the oldest rocks on earth with recent asteroids and get the same results.

Again, for a comprehensive study of radiometric dating techniques.


Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

941 Estates Drive, Los Alamos, NM 87544
RCWiens@MSN.Com

Radiometric Dating

 

[AirPo]

watching this would mean that the same sea fossils found at the top of mt everest would also be on the top layers of rock down at the bottom...because the whole top layers of the mountain would have all been at the bottom of some ocean?

Pause at 1:30. You'll see the only a small part of the model in the middle is ocean basin, the green sand. The left and the right, the continents, do not have a green layer. When the model starts, it's the green layer that gets pushed up to form he mountains. The green layer does not extend over the whole model. Then at 2:15 it discusses how erosion may affect the actual process.

 

[Colter]

watching this would mean that the same sea fossils found at the top of mt everest would also be on the top layers of rock down at the bottom...because the whole top layers of the mountain would have all been at the bottom of some ocean?

If the flood myth explanation were true the ancient and extinct Trilobite fossils found in the sandstone deposits at the top of Everest would be uniformly deposited all over the mountainous region.

"In his splendid volume Geology of the Himalayas (1964; reviewed in this Number, p. 86), Professor Augusto Gansser refers (p. 164) to the rock specimens brought back from the summit of Mount Everest by the successful Swiss climbers in 1956, and also by the American team in 1963. All the various summit specimens, Professor Gansser states, are lithologically quite identical. They consist of fine-grained, thin-bedded grey calc-schists or platy limestones. The calcites are elongated conformably with the schistosity, which seems to parallel the bedding. The detrital grains are mostly quartz, acid plagioclases and some microline, together with fine sericite lamellae, paralleling the calcites. Gansser continues: “Of special interest is the fact that both samples contain crinoidal fragments. Their large uniform calcite crystals contrast with the otherwise much finer crystalline matrix. In one elongated stem-fragment the segmentation is visible (Photo. 46), while one small plate still shows the well-preserved perforation (Photo. 47).” Moreover, he observes: “These remnants, representing the highest fossils in the world, are unfortunately not sufficiently well-preserved to allow an age-determination of the top Everest limestone. They do, however, support rather than contradict the Carboniferous (to Lower Permian) age generally assigned to the Everest limestones, on the grounds that they are overlain by the (Upper) Permian Lachi Series (Odell, 1943; Wager, 1939).”"

 

[USincognito]

Okay.. I'll pick one.....explain fossils. Normal biological issue decomposes when it dies...it doesn't fossilize. A sudden flood that dropped an instant significant layer of silt on biological material that dies almost suddenly and blocking to the oxygen and other gasses needed for decomposing could explain why there is a sudden layer of fossilized animals.

Your turn. Explain sea shell fossils at the top of mountains (Mt Everest for example).
and how there was soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil that supposedly died over seventy five million years ago.

If I answer all three of your questions, which I can without even searching because they're PRATTs, will answer one of mine?

 

[USincognito]

I will admit that it has been a while since I have read up on some of this but what machine/computer have they developed that can measure the ages of things from a million years ago?

Mass spectrometer is one IIRC.