Updating The Theory of the Earth

[Dr GS Hurd]

IMy main thesis is that carbon dating does assume the C14/C12 ratio is constant. If never more than one tree ring or lake varve layer formed in a year, I would agree to abandon the young earth hypothesis. But I understand exceptions to one ring per year have been found. Moreover, as far as I know, recorded history only goes back 5,000 years, and conditions prior to then could be much different, possibly allowing even more rings per year than we have already observed. My conclusion is that you have to make assumptions for extrapolating beyond than 5000 years, and all dating prior to 5000 years ago is in effect contaminated by such assumptions.

Your real position is that there is no amount of data that could ever teach you the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry. As for "recorded history, it is older than you think. I suggest reading;

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 “Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Revised” Oxford University Press

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" New York: The Free Press

Mazar, Amihai
1992 "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E." The Anchor Bible Reference Library NewYork: ABRL/Doubleday

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise
1992 "Before Writing Volume I: From counting to cuneiform" Austin: University of Texas Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can't think of anything short of human testing of atomic bombs in the atmosphere that would have greatly altered the 14-C/12-C ratio.

There is also the widespread burning of ancient fossilized fuels, putting tons and tons of carbon dioxide lacking carbon 14 into the air.

 

[ddubois]

Your real position is that there is no amount of data that could ever teach you the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry. As for "recorded history, it is older than you think. I suggest reading;

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 “Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others, Revised” Oxford University Press

Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman
2001 "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" New York: The Free Press

Mazar, Amihai
1992 "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E." The Anchor Bible Reference Library NewYork: ABRL/Doubleday

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise
1992 "Before Writing Volume I: From counting to cuneiform" Austin: University of Texas Press

Smith, Mark S.
2002 “The Early History of God 2nd ed.” Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing

I have read more about ancient history and archaeology than you might think. What I've read is that writing began in Mesopotamia about 3800 BC. Do these books say different? I am taking maybe 700 years off the official dating based on my own theories, but I am aware of what the official dating is, more or less. I know there are at least 3 versions of Egyptian chronology, not widely separated, and then there is Velikovsky, who I know is thought to be officially discredited, who likes it about 700 years less. I understand that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the Sumerian records. I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and looked at the King list chronologies.

You say, "Your real position is that there is no amount of data that could ever teach you the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry." I'm not quite sure what you mean. Here are some possible interpretations and my responses:
1. "my position is that no data could teach me the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry?" means I am unwilling to learn these things -- not true -- I am constantly looking at the internet trying to learn new things, and I do in fact learn new things from those I debate with, including you. It may very well take me a while to absorb the basics of fields I have not had training in, but I like to know the belief systems of those I converse with.
2. "my position is that no data could teach me the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry?" means that in spite of compelling data, I will reject basic geologic and chemical principles to pursue my own agenda -- not actually true, though I concede it might look that way to someone unsympathetic or unaware of my position. I really am very zealous of the truth, especially The Truth. I really think my pursuit of The Truth helps me in discovering all the other truths in His book of nature. I don't know a lot about Taoism, which I understand means following "the way", but I can imagine you feel it helps you in the same way I feel following Jesus, the Truth, the Light, and the Way, helps me.
3. "my position is that no data could teach me the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry?" means that I am too stupid to see plain geologic or chemical truth -- I don't think this is true. Most people think I am rather bright, although I am getting older and just lost a game of Monopoly this weekend, which I hardly ever would have done when I was younger.

All this being said, I really do enjoy sparring with you.

 

[ddubois]

Can I ask you a question: How old do you think the earth actually is?

I'm not really sure, but my most recent idea at this point is about 7500 years, agreeing with the Septuagint Bible. I know with some 99% of geologists disagreeing with this, it may look strange, but I've looked into this a fair amount over the last 30 years, and I don't think it is an unreasonable hypothesis. It won't shatter my faith if I'm wrong, though. God's ways are higher than mine.

 

[ddubois]

"Not that I am aware of."

You were not aware of more than one dinosaur carbon-dated to under 40,000 years, so I am attaching the following excerpt from the internet:

"...Hugh Miller and others authored a paper detailing the results of carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils which was presented at the Western Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 2012.3,4 Each of the two thousand meeting participants was given a disc which included the abstract of the carbon-14 dating report. However, the abstract of the Miller presentation was removed from the website for the conference.1,5Why is the information presented in the paper important? If the accepted ages of millions of years for dinosaurs were to be found to be in error, this would be a problem to evolution. The dinosaur dates reported below and discussed in the AOGS 2012 paper discussed throughout this article, included triceratops, hadrosaur, allosaurus, and acrocanthasaurs. Below is a list of some dinosaur fossils and their dated ages from the Miller paper.4

• An allosaurus from the Morrison formation, late Jurassic, found in 1989 was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry. The age was found to be 31,360 ± 100 years old.
• The femur of an Upper Creataceous Hell Creek formation triceratops-like dinosaur (perhaps a new type of ceratopsid) found in 2007 was carbon-14 dated by the University of Georgia using accelerator mass spectrometry and found to be 39,230 ± 140 years old.
• Another Hell Creek formation dinosaur, found in 2004, a triceratops, was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry in 2009 as 24,340 ± 70 years old.
• An apatosaurus was found in late Jurassic strata of the Morrison formation, and excavation was done in 2007 and 2009. In 2011 the University of Georgia dated the fossil to 38,250 ± 160 years old.
• A hadrosaur’s hip bone was found in 2011 in the Hell Creek formation. The University of Georgia dated a sample from this bone to be 37,660 ± 160 years old.
• In 2012 a triceratops horn was found. The University of Georgia dated the fossil to be 33,570 ± 120 years old.
• A femur bone from a hardosaur in 2004 was found in the Hell Creek formation. The University of Georgia using accelerator mass spectrometry dated the sample to 25,670 ± 220 years old.
• An acrocanthosaurus (carnivorous dinosaur) specimen was excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose, Texas and was tested in 2010 by the University of Georgia. It was found to be 29,690 ± 90 years old. ..."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You were not aware of more than one dinosaur carbon-dated to under 40,000 years, so I am attaching the following excerpt from the internet:

"...Hugh Miller and others authored a paper detailing the results of carbon-14 dating of dinosaur fossils which was presented at the Western Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 2012.3,4 Each of the two thousand meeting participants was given a disc which included the abstract of the carbon-14 dating report. However, the abstract of the Miller presentation was removed from the website for the conference.1,5Why is the information presented in the paper important? If the accepted ages of millions of years for dinosaurs were to be found to be in error, this would be a problem to evolution. The dinosaur dates reported below and discussed in the AOGS 2012 paper discussed throughout this article, included triceratops, hadrosaur, allosaurus, and acrocanthasaurs. Below is a list of some dinosaur fossils and their dated ages from the Miller paper.4

• An allosaurus from the Morrison formation, late Jurassic, found in 1989 was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry. The age was found to be 31,360 ± 100 years old.
• The femur of an Upper Creataceous Hell Creek formation triceratops-like dinosaur (perhaps a new type of ceratopsid) found in 2007 was carbon-14 dated by the University of Georgia using accelerator mass spectrometry and found to be 39,230 ± 140 years old.
• Another Hell Creek formation dinosaur, found in 2004, a triceratops, was dated by the University of Georgia by accelerator mass spectrometry in 2009 as 24,340 ± 70 years old.
• An apatosaurus was found in late Jurassic strata of the Morrison formation, and excavation was done in 2007 and 2009. In 2011 the University of Georgia dated the fossil to 38,250 ± 160 years old.
• A hadrosaur’s hip bone was found in 2011 in the Hell Creek formation. The University of Georgia dated a sample from this bone to be 37,660 ± 160 years old.
• In 2012 a triceratops horn was found. The University of Georgia dated the fossil to be 33,570 ± 120 years old.
• A femur bone from a hardosaur in 2004 was found in the Hell Creek formation. The University of Georgia using accelerator mass spectrometry dated the sample to 25,670 ± 220 years old.
• An acrocanthosaurus (carnivorous dinosaur) specimen was excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose, Texas and was tested in 2010 by the University of Georgia. It was found to be 29,690 ± 90 years old. ..."

All ages along that line are within easy range of having been the result of contamination. Mere traces of the necessary isotope were detected.

 

[ddubois]

In this case your assumptions are:

1. Thousands of dinosaur bones found over the past 150 years have been incorrectly dated
2. After 65 million years ago dinosaurs effectively hid such that they would never be found in younger rocks
3. A more likely explanation of a lower age for this material is incorrect (contamination)
4. All radiometric dating that is not C-14 is incorrect (which is how earlier dinosaur bones would have been dated by U-Pb or Ar-Ar, or K-Ar in marker beds above or stratigraphically near the dinosaur bones)
5. Everything we know about geology is completely wrong

What Ockham's razor ensures is that an hypothesis such as mine is more likely. My assumptions are:

1. There has been an error in this sample, a contamination.
2. Geology, paleontology and stratigraphy are all still intact.

Let me try again. What do you think of the following statement of our positions?

You:
1. Uniformitarian assumptions are reasonable, as they agree with what is happening now and present a fairly consistent, coherent picture of what has probably happened in the past.
2. Therefore, findings which disagree with these assumptions are probably in error.

Me:
1. Uniformitarian assumptions may not be reasonable, as there are many things happening now that probably happened a lot differently in the past.
2. Therefore if findings disagree with those assumptions, we should check them out in an open-minded way, even if that might require a lot of changes.


and following up ---
1. All radiometric dating involves uniformitarian assumptions, some of which could be wrong. In particular, the dating of dinosaurs to millions of years can legitimately be restudied in light of recent carbon dating of at least 8 dinosaur fossils.
2. Invalidating contamination is a possibility. It would be nice if an open-minded mainstream paleontologist and a reputable lab could both be found willing to test that possibility.
3. If and when the under 40 thousand year age of dinosaurs is demonstrated by 2. above, it would then be worthwhile to reconsider the uniformitarian assumptions of the other radiometric dating methodologies, and if needed, come up with new dating methodologies.
4. Even if dating changed, most of geology should survive, including stratigraphy, although the extreme age interpretation possibly wouldn't.

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm not really sure, but my most recent idea at this point is about 7500 years, agreeing with the Septuagint Bible. I know with some 99% of geologists disagreeing with this

Not just geologists, but chemists, biologists, cosmologists, physicists, historians, anthropologists and most other branches of the sciences would also disagree with this position.

I know that this is an appeal to authority, but its a valid one. All of these fields have relevance in historical dating, and all of them point to ages of the earth vastly older than the one you posit.

Even if you ignore radiocarbon and radiometric dating entirely, the number of problems that a ~7500 year old earth are immense. The idea that the earth was relatively recent was thoroughly pulled apart - by Bible-believing geologists none the less - in the 1700s and 1800s.

If you want to accept a 7500 year old earth, then you have to account for the following:

Dendrochronology - Which goes back about 11,500 years (plus the root stock of various plants, which date back approx 9600 years, and various clonal colonies dating back as far as 80,000 years)
Archeomagnetism - Which goes back about 30,000 years
Lake varve dating - Which goes back about 60,000 years
Thermoluminescence - Which goes back about 100,000 years
Ice core dating - Which goes back about 800,000 years
Electron spin resonance - Which goes back about 1,000,000 years
Obsidian hydration dating - Which goes back about 1,200,000 years
Amino acid dating - Which goes back about 2,000,000 years

it may look strange, but I've looked into this a fair amount over the last 30 years, and I don't think it is an unreasonable hypothesis. It won't shatter my faith if I'm wrong, though. God's ways are higher than mine.

It doesn't look strange. What it looks like is that you have held a belief for the entirety of your life and are loath to change it in the face of evidence, as it would undermine some or much of the way you look at the world.

I consider it psychological insulation. We're all susceptible to it, and its never a good feeling - at least not initially - to have to back away from pre-conceived notions.

I'm glad that regardless of which way you decide, it wont shatter your faith. I think you should be free to believe as you want to believe. But, I do also believe that any reasonable individual should be able revise their beliefs in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, they are actually not reasonable at all.

A personal anecdote: When I went to write my masters, my professor sat me down and said to me: "Assume everything you are about to write is wrong".

That's actually a very liberating and challenging position. Instead of assuming you are right, and defending your position, assume that you are wrong and then actively try to break your own position.

If you can't break it, then present it to others to see if they can break it. If they cant break it either, then perhaps you have a solid footing to argue from.

 

[ddubois]

Not just geologists, but chemists, biologists, cosmologists, physicists, historians, anthropologists and most other branches of the sciences would also disagree with this position.

I know that this is an appeal to authority, but its a valid one. All of these fields have relevance in historical dating, and all of them point to ages of the earth vastly older than the one you posit.

Even if you ignore radiocarbon and radiometric dating entirely, the number of problems that a ~7500 year old earth are immense. The idea that the earth was relatively recent was thoroughly pulled apart - by Bible-believing geologists none the less - in the 1700s and 1800s.

If you want to accept a 7500 year old earth, then you have to account for the following:

Dendrochronology - Which goes back about 11,500 years (plus the root stock of various plants, which date back approx 9600 years, and various clonal colonies dating back as far as 80,000 years)
Archeomagnetism - Which goes back about 30,000 years
Lake varve dating - Which goes back about 60,000 years
Thermoluminescence - Which goes back about 100,000 years
Ice core dating - Which goes back about 800,000 years
Electron spin resonance - Which goes back about 1,000,000 years
Obsidian hydration dating - Which goes back about 1,200,000 years
Amino acid dating - Which goes back about 2,000,000 years



It doesn't look strange. What it looks like is that you have held a belief for the entirety of your life and are loath to change it in the face of evidence, as it would undermine some or much of the way you look at the world.

I consider it psychological insulation. We're all susceptible to it, and its never a good feeling - at least not initially - to have to back away from pre-conceived notions.

I'm glad that regardless of which way you decide, it wont shatter your faith. I think you should be free to believe as you want to believe. But, I do also believe that any reasonable individual should be able revise their beliefs in the light of new evidence. Otherwise, they are actually not reasonable at all.

A personal anecdote: When I went to write my masters, my professor sat me down and said to me: "Assume everything you are about to write is wrong".

That's actually a very liberating and challenging position. Instead of assuming you are right, and defending your position, assume that you are wrong and then actively try to break your own position.

If you can't break it, then present it to others to see if they can break it. If they cant break it either, then perhaps you have a solid footing to argue from.

Your information, psychological outlook, and philosophy are interesting, and I would like to engage a bit more with you.

As to your information,
Electron spin resonance - Which goes back about 1,000,000 years
Obsidian hydration dating - Which goes back about 1,200,000 years
Amino acid dating - Which goes back about 2,000,000 years --
I am unfamiliar with these. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you briefly explain how these demonstrate what you say they do? Extracts from the internet would be great.

As to your psychological outlook, you say What it looks like is that you have held a belief for the entirety of your life and are loath to change it in the face of evidence, as it would undermine some or much of the way you look at the world." In fact until about age 40, I believed as you do, and then in response to new information, had a dramatic change of mind. Perhaps you are due for one yourself. It actually wasn't so difficult for me to change my mind, it was liberating. Perhaps you will find that also.

As to your philosophy, you said "any reasonable individual should be able revise their beliefs in the light of new evidence." I did, and hopefully you will too. Consider carbon dating of dinosaur fossils seriously, without the blinders of all your schooling and traditions. Mainstream science is not as open to new ideas as you might think -- they tend to regard challenging new ways of explaining anomalies as "pseudoscience," until the evidence becomes overwhelming.

Finally, this is how I understand our different points of view. I've never been to a physical boot camp, but perhaps your professor filled a role sort of like a drill instructor, and you feel more tough minded now as a result of the process he put you through and have attained truth as a result. It sounds like you like to break things to test them.

As for me, I found Truth about age 40, after having failed in five different lines of work that I tried and being as depressed as I have ever been, when I was finally willing to accept I couldn't do life on my own. I then had a great 6 months of encouraging instruction; an emotional boot camp came later. Although it may not look that way to you, I like to try to see how well things fit together to test them.

 

[Loudmouth]

2. "my position is that no data could teach me the basics of geology, or isotope geochemistry?" means that in spite of compelling data, I will reject basic geologic and chemical principles to pursue my own agenda -- not actually true, though I concede it might look that way to someone unsympathetic or unaware of my position. I really am very zealous of the truth, especially The Truth. I really think my pursuit of The Truth helps me in discovering all the other truths in His book of nature. I don't know a lot about Taoism, which I understand means following "the way", but I can imagine you feel it helps you in the same way I feel following Jesus, the Truth, the Light, and the Way, helps me.

You claim that the global flood would have caused a massive change in carbon isotope ratios. We have the carbon isotope ratios from past eras, and they are preserved in ice layers, lake varves, speleothems, and tree rings. Those records show no drastic change in carbon isotopes. Here is the graph of the data:

None of the data points is far away from the 1:1 line, and there is no sudden change in the data trend.

You claim that you zealously seek the truth. If that is true, why do you still hold to your previous position?

 

[amanuensis63]

1. All radiometric dating involves uniformitarian assumptions, some of which could be wrong.

Let us talk about the 8 dinosaur samples you are listing here. From the NewGeology website we find that one of them is from Colorado from the Morrison Formation. The Morrison formation has been radiometrically dated at top and bottom to be between 156-147million years. (References: Trujillo, K.C.; Chamberlain, K.R.; Strickland, A. (2006). "Oxfordian U/Pb ages from SHRIMP analysis for the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of southeastern Wyoming with implications for biostratigraphic correlations". Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 38 (6): 7 and Bilbey, S.A. (1998). "Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry - age, stratigraphy and depositional environments". In Carpenter, K.; Chure, D.; and Kirkland, J.I. (eds.). The Morrison Formation: An Interdisciplinary Study. Modern Geology 22. Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 87–120)

In addition this formation contains evidence of shallow SEAS (the Sundance Sea) and times without the sea.

Here's the MOrrison Fm in context:

NOTE that the Morrison Fm is underneath a LOT of other rock. And if you look at the Mancos shale above it remember that a shale is made up mostly of small "clay minerals" which take a LONG time to settle out of standing water. But you would have me believe that the dinosaurs in the MORRISON Fm are so young that they existed within the last hundred thousand years? Remember, after the dinos died and were preserved in the Morrison we have had a LOT more time pass as recorded in the rocks.

SO, either everything we know not only about radiometric dating except for your preferred 14-C along with everything we know about physics must be wrong or the 14-C data must be right.

If you accept the 14-C data you must explain why the U-Pb data used to date the Morrison formation in which the dinosaurs were found is WRONG and you will need to explain how everything we know about physics can be so wrong that we don't even understand how sediments are laid down.

4. Even if dating changed, most of geology should survive, including stratigraphy

Nope. Because you're going to have explain not only how hundreds of feet of sediment got deposited on top of these dinos but was LITHIFIED and made into solid rock in just 30-40,000 short years.

, although the extreme age interpretation possibly wouldn't.

It helps to understand basic geology before hoping one can overturn it.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I'll address just one of these fake "evidences."

In 2012 a triceratops horn was found. The University of Georgia dated the fossil to be 33,570 ± 120 years old.

Elsewhere I have published on earlier "soft tissue" frauds promoted by YE Creationists. "Dino-blood and the Young Earth" The frauds were the false claims made by YECs about the work of Mary Schweitzer.

The recent paper "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus," by Mark Hollis Armitage, and Kevin Lee Anderson published in Acta Histochemica (2013), attracted my attention.

The location data given by Armitage&Anderson of their "Triceratops" is in the 'old school" section-township-range style. It is useful to avoid giving away exact locations. Their description was; A private ranch at E 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Section 14, T. 15 N., R. 56 E., Dawson County, Glendive, MT, USA. The location is read backwards from the USGS quad map series. It took a bit of sleuthing to locate the property. The "private ranch" where the Armitage&Anderson specimens were collected is owned by creationist Otis Kline. He also operates a creationist museum in Glendive, Montana. The "work" was done without funding at CalStateUni, Northridge (CSUN), and at the Creation Research Society's Van Andel Creation Research Center which Kevin L. Anderson runs.

The so-called research paper only provided an affiliation for Kevin Anderson as, "Arkansas State University, Beebe." This is a 2 year school associated with the main university. Dr. Anderson is no longer listed in the faculty directory, and is not teaching any courses. They didn't mention that he directed Creation Research Society's Van Andel Creation Research Center, or was the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. Nor was it mentioned that Mark Armitage was on the Board of Directors for these creationist organizations. This is only significant because the authors have claimed that the work was done at CSUN, and that it was NOT done at CSUN.

The creationist press identifying "paleontologist Otis Kline" and Hugh R. Miller, leads us to : Miller, H. R. "DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS-same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna."

Hugh R. Miller is the "Head of the Paleochronology Group" of Ohio that submits supposedly dinosaur bones for C14 dates. There are a few massive problems with the Armitage&Anderson paper, and the C14 dating procedures used by Hugh Miller.

What a nice daisy chain.

There is no competent geological stratagraphic discussion of the "triceratops" horn. It was found isolated kilometers from any other dinosaur bones. It was in a fine grained secondary deposit. It was found cracked, excavation damage was extensive, and it had roots growing through it! Here is the field setting;

None of these people ever thought to compare it with 30,000 year old bison horns:

That would spoil all their fun. But it is more consistent with the available facts. Ice Age (Quaternary in geology speak) bison are known from the Hell Creek formation as 30 to 40 thousand year old intrusive fossils. The C14 data for this fossil falls into the 30 - 40 thousand year range. Armitage&Anderson wrote that their "discovery" was the largest "Triceratops" horn ever found. It is just about average for Ice Age Bison.

Aaron R. Wood, Mary J. Kraus, and Philip D. Gingerich
2008 "Downslope Fossil Contamination: Mammal-Bearing Fluvial Conglomerates and the Paleocene–Eocene Faunal Transition (Willwood Formation, Bighorn Basin, Wyoming)" PALAIOS

Lofgren, D. L., Hotton, C. L., & Runkel, A. C.
1990 "Reworking of Cretaceous dinosaurs into Paleocene channel, deposits, upper Hell Creek Formation, Montana." Geology, 18(9), 874-877.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

While we are at this, there was another "dino date" mentioned, the triceratops femur:

Fig.3a shows the Triceratops femur dissection using carefully cleaned saw with the bone supported by wood frame and plaster of Paris cast.


What was wrong here?

Why bother to "carefully clean" a saw to then drag it back and forth through a fossil, and fresh wood, Plaster of Paris, aluminum foil, burlap strips, and who knows what else? Why pretend to be "scientific" wearing examination gloves?

There is a single answer; to fool people who do not know better.

 

[ddubois]

Thank you for your response. I'm impressed by the amount of work you have done to rebut the triceratops bone datings. I am not too surprised with the lower level of mainstream credentials given the displeasure of the mainstream educational establishment with the young earth premise. Also I am not too shocked at deceptive spinning -- it is unfortunately not uncommon in our age, and I and others who call themselves Christian have done it at times. The creationist scientists perhaps have more reason than most to do it, given the lack of cooperation (to put it mildly) they get from the mainstream establishment. Nevertheless I really don't think the majority of creationist scientists are all less than competent charlatans out to deceive us. (Nor do I believe you are out to deceive me.) I will however concede that based on what you've said this particular dating of a triceratops horn looks like it is at best an error.

 

[Gene2memE]

I am unfamiliar with these. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you briefly explain how these demonstrate what you say they do?

You are able to look these up yourself, are you not?

As loath as I am to do your work for you, I'll be be brief:

Electron spin resonance: There's good description of it here. Basically it has been used since the mid-1970s in dating things such as teeth, mollusc shells, sediments and corals. Sometimes used as an alternative dating method or as a cross check to thermoluminescence dating
Obsidian hydration dating uses the hydration rate of volcanic obsidian to date it. It has been used since the 1960s to date tools made of obsidian. It can be cross-checked with other techniques, such as radiometric dating.
Amino acid dating uses the racemization rates of amino acids as its clock. Its been used in a variety of fields since its discovery in the early 1970s.

As for me, I found Truth about age 40, after having failed in five different lines of work that I tried and being as depressed as I have ever been, when I was finally willing to accept I couldn't do life on my own.

This, I think, is where we part company. Anyone that finds the capital T "truth" cannot be reasoned around to a contrary position. They have arrived at the spot they want to be, and will not move from it.

Your capital T "Truth" puts me in mind of a Terry Pratchett line: "He could think in italics. Such people need watching. Preferably from a safe distance.”

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Thank you for your response.

You are welcome.

I will however concede that based on what you've said this particular dating of a triceratops horn looks like it is at best an error.

They are liars. They are lying. It is fraud.

They are not alone, or even rare;

Carl Baugh's many frauds
Andrew Snelling, and Steve Austin: Creationist Frauds
Mt. Saint Helens and Noah: A "Little Grand Canyon?"

Seriously I could do this all day. Some times I just go fishing;

 

[ddubois]

You claim that the global flood would have caused a massive change in carbon isotope ratios. We have the carbon isotope ratios from past eras, and they are preserved in ice layers, lake varves, speleothems, and tree rings. Those records show no drastic change in carbon isotopes. Here is the graph of the data:

None of the data points is far away from the 1:1 line, and there is no sudden change in the data trend.

You claim that you zealously seek the truth. If that is true, why do you still hold to your previous position?

Thank you for the very nice chart, which I will save for my files. To answer your question about why, if I seek the truth, I hold to my position in spite of your apparent strong evidence, let me try to explain:

A global flood would have had to eliminated all pre-existing ice layers, lake varves, and trees. I believe in the flood being about 3000 BC, so I have to believe that more than one tree ring, ice ring, and lake varve formed in some years, which I understand is quite possible. (Incidentally, as to the flood date, there have been studies that river deltas worldwide only began about 3000 BC.) That being the case, everything on your chart has to have a real date prior to about 3000 BC and so it is not surprising that the C14/C12 ratio is not markedly different. The coal would supposedly be pre-flood and it is claimed that some of it has indeed been carbon dated. Has any mainstream scientist checked its carbon isotope ratios?

 

[ddubois]

You are able to look these up yourself, are you not?

As loath as I am to do your work for you, I'll be be brief:

Electron spin resonance: There's good description of it here. Basically it has been used since the mid-1970s in dating things such as teeth, mollusc shells, sediments and corals. Sometimes used as an alternative dating method or as a cross check to thermoluminescence dating
Obsidian hydration dating uses the hydration rate of volcanic obsidian to date it. It has been used since the 1960s to date tools made of obsidian. It can be cross-checked with other techniques, such as radiometric dating.
Amino acid dating uses the racemization rates of amino acids as its clock. Its been used in a variety of fields since its discovery in the early 1970s.



This, I think, is where we part company. Anyone that finds the capital T "truth" cannot be reasoned around to a contrary position. They have arrived at the spot they want to be, and will not move from it.

Your capital T "Truth" puts me in mind of a Terry Pratchett line: "He could think in italics. Such people need watching. Preferably from a safe distance.”

Thanks for the information -- I confess to being lazy about looking up your references, and am properly rebuked. I was so pleased with myself in my earlier reply to you, but I see I really turned you off. Sorry about that.

 

[Leslie B]

Are you guys christians?

 

[Leslie B]

It sounds like you guys are really in awe of Gods creation