Updating The Theory of the Earth

[Dr GS Hurd]

Here are two slides I use in lecture. The first is from creationist publications;

Creationists use the following descriptions of this photograph attributed to Dr. Steve Austin (1994, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego):

Photo 1: The whole sequence of sedimentary layers through which Grand Canyon cuts has been bent and folded without fracturing (emp added). This includes the Tapeats Sandstone, located at the bottom of the sequence. (A 90° fold in the eastern Grand Canyon is pictured here.)

Look at the photos of some of these layers at the edge of the plateau, just east of the Grand Canyon. The whole sequence of these hardened sedimentary rock layers has been bent and folded, but without fracturing (emp added) (Figure 1.3)

These same lies are repeated on dozens of creationist websites, and publications.

Here is the reality;

I have only sketched the more obvious stress fractures. For some added commentary, see;

http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2015/07/andrew-snelling-and-steve-austin.html

 

[ddubois]

YEC's refuse to present it to real geologists. They don't submit their work to real scientific journals. They don't present their work at geology conferences. It is the creationists who refuse to have their work considered by real scientists.



We have already covered the carbon dating. Anything else?

As to your first statement, consider the following which I extracted from the internet:

Field trip 409 was not the first such creationist-led geology excursion at a GSA meeting. At the 2009 annual GSA meeting in Portland, Ore., four of the five trip leaders (Austin, Whitmore, Clarey and Ross) organized a field trip to Mount St. Helens to examine catastrophic erosion resulting from the 1980 eruption. After that trip, the Institute for Creation Research ran a headline bragging, “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting,” noting that Austin’s “peer-reviewed manuscript was published by GSA.”

As to your second statement, I really don't believe you have adequately rebutted the evidence for young age carbon dating of dinosaurs, nor responded to the creationist invitation for mainstream participation. Consider the following extracted from an e-mail I received today:

Conclusion:If the 14C ages in the 1000’s of years for other dinosaurs and shale world-wide prove consistently reproducible by other scientists then most dinosaurs in the fossil record must have met their end in a universal cataclysm as science suggests; BUT, 2000 times more recently than the conventional wisdom of 65 Ma BP. An American, Canadian, and Swedish team have confirmed our ages for other reptiles allegedly > 70 Ma old. Needless to say this is indeed an explosive topic but scientists have an obligation to check such important anomalies for validity as part of the scientific method and search for truth in science. An international conference of experts could be convened to design field & lab research studies using modern paleohydraulics (how sediments and rocks form), mineralogy (how minerals form) and 14C dating methods.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As to your first statement, consider the following which I extracted from the internet:

Field trip 409 was not the first such creationist-led geology excursion at a GSA meeting. At the 2009 annual GSA meeting in Portland, Ore., four of the five trip leaders (Austin, Whitmore, Clarey and Ross) organized a field trip to Mount St. Helens to examine catastrophic erosion resulting from the 1980 eruption. After that trip, the Institute for Creation Research ran a headline bragging, “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting,” noting that Austin’s “peer-reviewed manuscript was published by GSA.”

As to your second statement, I really don't believe you have adequately rebutted the evidence for young age carbon dating of dinosaurs, nor responded to the creationist invitation for mainstream participation. Consider the following extracted from an e-mail I received today:

Conclusion:If the 14C ages in the 1000’s of years for other dinosaurs and shale world-wide prove consistently reproducible by other scientists then most dinosaurs in the fossil record must have met their end in a universal cataclysm as science suggests; BUT, 2000 times more recently than the conventional wisdom of 65 Ma BP. An American, Canadian, and Swedish team have confirmed our ages for other reptiles allegedly > 70 Ma old. Needless to say this is indeed an explosive topic but scientists have an obligation to check such important anomalies for validity as part of the scientific method and search for truth in science. An international conference of experts could be convened to design field & lab research studies using modern paleohydraulics (how sediments and rocks form), mineralogy (how minerals form) and 14C dating methods.

Sounds like something a creationist group should fund, making sure to hire reputable, old earth believing scientists.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

There are a handful of creationists who attend the GSA meetings each year. The "reviewers" for the meetings in fact assert that they are not "gate keepers" and that any member can present.

For a comment on the 2009 GSA meeting, see; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2011/07/flood-geology-and-geological-society-of.html

 

[Loudmouth]

As to your first statement, consider the following which I extracted from the internet:

Field trip 409 was not the first such creationist-led geology excursion at a GSA meeting.

Field trips are not presentations.

At the 2009 annual GSA meeting in Portland, Ore., four of the five trip leaders (Austin, Whitmore, Clarey and Ross) organized a field trip to Mount St. Helens to examine catastrophic erosion resulting from the 1980 eruption. After that trip, the Institute for Creation Research ran a headline bragging, “Christian Geologists Influential at GSA Meeting,” noting that Austin’s “peer-reviewed manuscript was published by GSA.”

Citation for the abstract?

As to your second statement, I really don't believe you have adequately rebutted the evidence for young age carbon dating of dinosaurs, nor responded to the creationist invitation for mainstream participation.

There is no evidence that would change your beliefs. That's the problem.

 

[ddubois]

Field trips are not presentations.



Citation for the abstract?



There is no evidence that would change your beliefs. That's the problem.

As to your first challenge, following are some of the papers Austin said were presented by creationists at the 2009 GSA Portland meeting:

1. Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors.
2. Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors.
3. Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

As to your second challenge, you claim my mind is unchangeable. Not true, and here is an example:
I recently said, "Those following the old earth paradigm tend to push the processes they cannot demonstrate (like life from non-life) billions of years in the past, as if enough time will explain what cannot now be explained." That was a restatement of something Cuvier said about 200 years ago, before radiometric dating, and you correctly punctured it. While I believe there still is some truth in the ideas behind my statement, as I stated it, it was wrong.

Now how about your mind?
Can you admit you were wrong when you said, "YEC's refuse to present it to real geologists. They don't submit their work to real scientific journals. They don't present their work at geology conferences. It is the creationists who refuse to have their work considered by real scientists."?

 

[Loudmouth]

As to your first challenge, following are some of the papers Austin said were presented by creationists at the 2009 GSA Portland meeting:

1. Cheung, S. P., R. Strom, J. H. Whitmore and P. G. Garner. 2009. Occurrence of dolomite beds, clasts, ooids and unidentified microfossils in the Coconino Sandstone. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-4; Whitmore, J. H. and R. Strom. 2009. Petrographic analysis of the Coconino Sandstone, northern and central Arizona. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-24. Reprints available from the authors.
2. Baechtle, K. P. and J. Whitmore. 2009. Characterization of the sand in the Nebraska Sandhills. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 35-2. Reprints available from the authors.
3. Clarey, T. L. 2009. Timing relations between the South Fork and Heart Mountain fault systems with implications for emplacement, Wyoming, USA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, session 223-10. Reprint available from the author.

How did these abstracts support a young Earth?

As to your second challenge, you claim my mind is unchangeable. Not true, and here is an example:
I recently said, "Those following the old earth paradigm tend to push the processes they cannot demonstrate (like life from non-life) billions of years in the past, as if enough time will explain what cannot now be explained." That was a restatement of something Cuvier said about 200 years ago, before radiometric dating, and you correctly punctured it. While I believe there still is some truth in the ideas behind my statement, as I stated it, it was wrong.

You continue to claim that 14C changed suddenly in the past even though we have shown you evidence that it didn't.

Now how about your mind?
Can you admit you were wrong when you said, "YEC's refuse to present it to real geologists. They don't submit their work to real scientific journals. They don't present their work at geology conferences. It is the creationists who refuse to have their work considered by real scientists."?

Once you show that these abstracts presented evidence for a young Earth, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

The GSA has adopted the policy that any member can present anything they want to at their annual meeting. When I objected to creationist nonsense being given academic "cover," I was told that I could present my own talk.

This is really political correctness run amok.

 

[SkyWriting]

These same lies are repeated on dozens of creationist websites, and publications.
I have only sketched the more obvious stress fractures. For some added commentary, see;

They are not lies. As person who has been involved in physical properties testing
my entire career, I would describe the material examined in the pictures as having
plastic properties. The conditions at the time of folding are difficult to recreate.

 

[ddubois]

How did these abstracts support a young Earth?



You continue to claim that 14C changed suddenly in the past even though we have shown you evidence that it didn't.



Once you show that these abstracts presented evidence for a young Earth, I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

I didn't realize you had responded until today. I will respond to your three statements below:
1. I don't know how these abstracts support a young earth, and I don't want to do the research to check. I was just trying to make the point that creationists do in fact present their work at mainstream meetings.

2. I presented a hypothesis that the ratio of 14c/12c changed dramatically in the past, and the reasons why I think it did. (It is documented that it has changed in the past by small amounts.) You have shown evidence that if the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable (an assumption), then lake varves, tree rings, carbon dating, etc. etc. seem to produce consistent values at variance with a young earth. I have not yet seen from you evidence that the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable prior to about 3000BC. Using values of the ratio based on assumed constancy of the ratio to show it is constant is circular reasoning.

3. Despite what I said in 1. above, since radiocarbon dating is a technique of geochronology, which is a subset of geology, I can use an abstract I've quoted from before to show where creationists have presented their overtly creationist work at a mainstream conference with geologists:

From Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371497
DP Review

"A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. Although the fossils were geologically dated to be over 65 million years old (Cretacious-Jurassic age), C14 dating showed they were less than 40,000 years old.

Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date. After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left.

The following is the abstract and results C14 dating:"
[I couldn't copy the abstract, but this is the address:]

dfdc0a3fdc564435bb159bce43a40d77

It was session B602-A012 and a description was "Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old"

 

[RickG]

I presented a hypothesis that the ratio of 14c/12c changed dramatically in the past, and the reasons why I think it did. (It is documented that it has changed in the past by small amounts.) You have shown evidence that if the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable (an assumption), then lake varves, tree rings, carbon dating, etc. etc. seem to produce consistent values at variance with a young earth. I have not yet seen from you evidence that the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable prior to about 3000BC. Using values of the ratio based on assumed constancy of the ratio to show it is constant is circular reasoning.

The calibration scale derived from 14C/12C ratios from tree rings, varves and speleothems all go back much further than 6,000 years, especially varves and speleothems. This is absolute specific data. How do you arrive at the idea of it being circular reasoning?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They are not lies. As person who has been involved in physical properties testing
my entire career, I would describe the material examined in the pictures as having
plastic properties. The conditions at the time of folding are difficult to recreate.

Solid rock can fold without breaking when the folding is done over extreme times such as hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

2. I presented a hypothesis that the ratio of 14c/12c changed dramatically in the past, and the reasons why I think it did. (It is documented that it has changed in the past by small amounts.) You have shown evidence that if the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable (an assumption), then lake varves, tree rings, carbon dating, etc. etc. seem to produce consistent values at variance with a young earth. I have not yet seen from you evidence that the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable prior to about 3000BC. Using values of the ratio based on assumed constancy of the ratio to show it is constant is circular reasoning.

Matching carbon 14 dates to counted annual lake bottom silt layers is not circular reasoning. Matching carbon 14 dates to counted tree rings is not circular reasoning.

 

[RickG]

It is probably true that the vast majority of those wishing to date a dinosaur would not use carbon-dating. However, to say no one does it though is not true, which you can see if you look on the internet. For example, at
Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft ...
https://www.icr.org/article/6084

Dinosaur bones (fossils) are not directly dated, rather the strata in which they are contained is dated. Any 14C that may be associated with dinosaur fossils would be In Situ, which is easily identifiable and can even be distinguished and removed. Did the people who carbon dated the dinosaur bones mention anything about identifying the excess 14C and accounting for it?

 

[Loudmouth]

2. I presented a hypothesis that the ratio of 14c/12c changed dramatically in the past, and the reasons why I think it did. (It is documented that it has changed in the past by small amounts.) You have shown evidence that if the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable (an assumption),

The lake varve, tree ring, etc. evidence demonstrates that it was stable. The tree ring, lake varve, ice layer, and speleothem data is the evidence for fairly stable 14C/12C ratios through time.

I have not yet seen from you evidence that the 14c/12c ratio was fairly stable prior to about 3000BC. Using values of the ratio based on assumed constancy of the ratio to show it is constant is circular reasoning.

Counting tree rings, counting lake varves, and counting ice layers is completely independent of the carbon age. It is not based on the constancy of carbon isotope ratios.

3. Despite what I said in 1. above, since radiocarbon dating is a technique of geochronology, which is a subset of geology, I can use an abstract I've quoted from before to show where creationists have presented their overtly creationist work at a mainstream conference with geologists:

From Dino Dating Conflicts: Carbon dating suggests less than 40,000 ...
www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3371497
DP Review

"A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. Although the fossils were geologically dated to be over 65 million years old (Cretacious-Jurassic age), C14 dating showed they were less than 40,000 years old.

They can't even show that they are dating actual organic tissue.

Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date.

Then you don't understand how radiocarbon dating works. If a fossil really is 65 million years, what would the best 14C date we could muster for that fossil using modern equipment? I am willing to give you +/- 5% leeway.

After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left.

Really? You might want to rethink that.

 

[RickG]

Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date. After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left.

There would be no cosmogenic 14C left which is what is measured in the radiocarbon dating process. However, there can be In Situ 14C due to ternary fission of U, Th and anomalous decay of heavy nuclei. Because these are in situ 14C atoms of contamination they can be removed by either wet extraction using hydrofluoric acid or dry extraction by fusion using 14C-free flux. Also by measuring the concentrations of other in situ nuclides such as 10Be and 26Al with respect to all 14C, the in situ can be be deduced. Thus samples that may contain both in situ and non in situ 14C can be quantified.

 

[ddubois]

The calibration scale derived from 14C/12C ratios from tree rings, varves and speleothems all go back much further than 6,000 years, especially varves and speleothems. This is absolute specific data. How do you arrive at the idea of it being circular reasoning?

I get that the varies the tree rings appear to synch up with the currently mainstream accepted carbonating techniques. I was not making a claim of circular reasoning about the frequently reproduced chart showing the apparent agreement. I have different counterarguments for that.

My circular reasoning statement applied to the following statement Loudmouth made earlier (see #33):
"Your proposed modification [that the ratio significantly changes] is not supported by the data. We have organic and inorganic samples from that time period, and the ratios from that time period were nearly the same as now."

When he said he had organic and inorganic samples from that time period, he was referring to a time period dated by the carbon dating technique assuming little or no variation in the C12/C14 ratio. The circular reasoning was in using data from a time period dated based on a constant ratio assumption to show that the ratio was constant.

 

[ddubois]

Dinosaur bones (fossils) are not directly dated, rather the strata in which they are contained is dated. Any 14C that may be associated with dinosaur fossils would be In Situ, which is easily identifiable and can even be distinguished and removed. Did the people who carbon dated the dinosaur bones mention anything about identifying the excess 14C and accounting for it?

I believe those doing the carbon dating did it correctly, but I am not an expert. Following is an extract from some material from a chemist who was involved in the dating, which may be helpful:

...modern sources of C-14, viz.: bacteria (biofilms), fungus, humic acids that invade fossil bones, wood etc. that could give false young ages are most unlikely, as long as the lab pre-treatments are performed as required. So the C-14 (RC) ages obtained for dinosaur bones and other fossils are really the maximum possible ages but not the real ages for some reasons already noted [Non-equilibrium state of C-14 production; earth’s electromagnetic field decreasing with time allowing increase in C-14 production over time etc. thus giving older ages than reality for dinosaurs]...
TIDE IN – DIRT OUT, RIGHT? I’m sure most of you have heard of that old Tide TV ad. Well, RC laboratories have mastered the techniques of removing young or old humic acids, biofilms etc. with alkaline pre-treatments just like when we wash our clothes. Most fossil materials can so be pre-treated successfully...
C-14 labs normally use hot dilute sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide over several hours and will even repeat the treatments if dark solution colorations persist. According to one Lab contact, Russian research 20 some years ago has shown that the RC ages do not change significantly after the second or third caustic wash and rinses. The C-14 ages we obtain are based on accepted procedures. Also, bacteria feed on the fossil they invade so have the same age as their host.[Bones containing biofilms apparently in the Kaye study were not pretreated]: "Bridged trails observed in biofilms indicate that a previously viscous film was populated with swimming bacteria. Carbon dating of the film points to its relatively modern origin.”]...
YOUNG OR OLD ABSORBED CALCIUM CARBONATE vs. CALCIUM CARBONATE FRACTION OF BONE BIOAPATITE – Contamination #1b

The vinegar pre-treatment: When calcium carbonate fraction of bone bioapatite is to be tested for C-14 content hot dilute weak acetic acid [vinegar] is used to remove old or young burial absorbed calcium carbonates as carbon dioxide under vacuum. This will ensure that absorbed old or young carbonates do not contaminate the crushed bone samples. Such carbonates can be absorbed on the surface or interior of fossils during the burial period in clay, limestone, sandstone etc.

The hydrochloric acid pre-treatment: A hot dilute strong acid like hydrochloric acid is then used to remove the calcium carbonate fraction of the bioapatite from the same bone specimen as carbon dioxide and collected under vacuum for C-14 dating. This calcium carbonate has replaced some of the calcium phosphate during the life-time of the dinosaur and therefore gives a reliable C-14 date as good as bone collagen and amounts to about 0.65% of the bone unless completely degenerate. Concordant RC ages among bone fractions like collagen, total organics and CO3 of the bone bioapatite are conclusive proof that the C-14 age is accurate and contamination has been eliminated even though the residual collagen content of some dinosaur bones appear to be no more than about 0.1 to 0.35 % although originally about 30% [Labs generally like to C-14 date bones containing at least 3% -7% collagen content based on my understanding]....
BUT WHAT ABOUT INVASIVE “OLD” OR “DEAD” CARBON [SUPPOSEDLY CONTAINING LITTLE OR NO C-14] TAKEN IN BY PLANTS AND ANIMALS DURING THEIR LIFE TIME BY EATING, DRINKING OR INHALING “OLD” CARBON SOURCES? Contamination # 2

Laboratories can eliminate most young C-14 sources by alkali and acid pre-treatments but can NOT eliminate old carbon contamination ingested during the life time of the plant/animal; thus both live and fossil plant and animal life can give much older ages than reality. This has been proven by both lab and field studies of living plants. Thus the C-14 ages for some living plants appear very ancient as shown by the following examples:

A living tree growing next to a German airport as a result of consuming old carbon dioxide from engine exhausts gave 10,000 RC years BP as reported by B. Huber [1]....

 

[RickG]

I get that the varies the tree rings appear to synch up with the currently mainstream accepted carbonating techniques. I was not making a claim of circular reasoning about the frequently reproduced chart showing the apparent agreement. I have different counterarguments for that.

My circular reasoning statement applied to the following statement Loudmouth made earlier (see #33):
"Your proposed modification [that the ratio significantly changes] is not supported by the data. We have organic and inorganic samples from that time period, and the ratios from that time period were nearly the same as now."

When he said he had organic and inorganic samples from that time period, he was referring to a time period dated by the carbon dating technique assuming little or no variation in the C12/C14 ratio. The circular reasoning was in using data from a time period dated based on a constant ratio assumption to show that the ratio was constant.

Loudmouth's statement is not circular reasoning. I think you just don't understand the terminology. There are numerous dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, which work completely independent of one another. By having several independent methods to determine chronologically, the cosmogenic 14C/12C ratios in those time periods can also be measured and quantified. It is the comparison of the two, those of which do not vary because they are not cosmogenic, and cosmogenic radionuclides, which do vary somewhat, none of which are extreme as you seem to indicate. There are other cosmogenic radionuclides which are available as well (10Be, & 36Cl) which have the same influence thus rendering multiple comparisons. Also understand that radiocarbon dates work from a base period of 1950. That way there is no need to know when the radiocarbon date was obtained. There are also different ways of expression radiocarbon dates, which can be expressed as radiocarbon years, or calendar years.

 

[ddubois]

The lake varve, tree ring, etc. evidence demonstrates that it was stable. The tree ring, lake varve, ice layer, and speleothem data is the evidence for fairly stable 14C/12C ratios through time.

Counting tree rings, counting lake varves, and counting ice layers is completely independent of the carbon age. It is not based on the constancy of carbon isotope ratios.



They can't even show that they are dating actual organic tissue.



Then you don't understand how radiocarbon dating works. If a fossil really is 65 million years, what would the best 14C date we could muster for that fossil using modern equipment? I am willing to give you +/- 5% leeway.



Really? You might want to rethink that.

Dear Loudmouth, you make 5 points which I will respond to in order:

1. I think you make a good debating point here. Your chart does appear to show a synchronicity between carbon dating (with assumed constant C14/C12) and other mainstream accepted dating methods. However your chart goes back 50,000 years and I am very suspicious of tree rings even more than 5000 years, and I know there can be multiple tree tree rings and I know there can be multiple ice layers. And I have a number of questions about cave dating. You can raise a legitimate objection that even so, how could they all agree? I haven't studied the science enough to give a firm answer, but I know human nature -- frequently people see what they expect to see, and reject what doesn't make sense to them. I suspect there are a number of outliers that simply don't appear on your chart and that some of the dating methodologies were chosen so as to synchronize with other accepted dating methodologies. Certainly not a strong rebuttal, but the best I can do at the moment.

2. Another good debating point, supplementing your first. Counting tree rings, lake varves, and ice layers would appear to be independent of the C14/C12 ratio. Although now that I think of it, it is at least possible that the same event which could increase the C14/C12 ratio could also multiply the number of apparent lake varves and ice layers. Again, not a strong rebuttal.

3. To me, your "They can't even show that they are dating actual organic tissue." seems weak. If "they" means the group that presented in Singapore, it seems to me you are being unjustifiably dismissive. From what I read, more and more different groups are using accepted standard carbon dating methodology on supposedly millions of years old material and getting young ages.

4. I was quoting from a probably mainstream geologist article reporting on the internet in reaction to the 2012 Singapore creationist presentation. You appear to be attributing his statements to me. It seemed to me his statement that "Something is not right here. There cannot be that much difference between the Geological date, and the Radiocarbon date." is just what you would have said. I understand the mainstream position to be that the geological 65 million year date should synchronize with the date from any other method.

5. Again you appear to be attributing a mainstream geologist statement to me.
It sees to me his statement that "After millions of years of being buried, there should be no Carbon 14 left." is compatible with the mainstream position. No carbon 14 under even the most advanced methodology is supposed to be discernible after more than about 100,000 years, from what I've read. Isn't that true?

As always, a pleasure debating with you -- yours truly, ddubois