Young Earth Hypothesis

[Elendur]

I do that according to biblical context.

And that just happens to be the context you choose

There is a reason for that:

“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” – (1 Cor 2:14).

That's just a cop out.

 

[The Engineer]

Your biased peer reviewed papers can take a hike.

My claims are supported by divinely inspired papers that are infallible.

There's a difference between "getting something wrong, once in a while" and "being consistently wrong, all the time". Not that I'd expect you to understand this.

Frankly, your responses are so cliched, I'm beginning to think you're an atheist in disguise.

 

[Guy1]

Exactly.

Ok?

So you agree it is biased at times, right?

I agree some scientists are biased at times. You get that with some humans.
]

Do you have any evidence it didn’t, or are you just assuming it didn’t based on what you observe today?

The latter, dove. You can't prove a negative, first off all. And the use of inductive reasoning ins one of the pillars of science. We must first find evidence to suggest that they change before we assume they did.

The point is that you are making an assumption about the distant past based on what you observe today. Why don’t you just admit that?

Because it misses some of the nuances pertaining to this issue. We have no evidence to suggest these changes, so we assume they have not. It's called inductive reasoning and it is quite useful in science.

EX:"P1: There has never been a reported incident of ice that was not cold
C1: All ice is cold."

Snow falls and accumulates and glaciers progress.

We still don't magically get more water than we started off with. The risk of flooding stays about the same.

The Great Melt.

I'm gonna be honest, I don't feel like reading.

 

[Doveaman]

We have no evidence to suggest these changes, so we assume they have not. It's called inductive reasoning and it is quite useful in science.
EX:"P1: There has never been a reported incident of ice that was not cold
C1: All ice is cold."

There have been reported incidents of fluctuations in the decay rates, as was pointed out here.

We still don't magically get more water than we started off with. The risk of flooding stays about the same.

Watch the video.

I'm gonna be honest, I don't feel like reading.

It's a video.

 

[Doveaman]

RickG and I have pounded this issue to death already. According to the article, some radioactive isotopes changed their decay rates (and they did so for a reason - if they fluctuated randomly, that would make results unreliable; if they changed during certain events, as seems to be the case, you can cross-reference them with those events to increase the accuracy of your calculations). The article doesn't say how much they changed, but as far as I remember, they did so by less than one percent. This means that the error margin would increase by less than a percent when dating with them. In short, the dinosaurs didn't die 65 millions years ago, but 64,35 million years ago at worst - still enough to disprove young earth creation.

Wow!

A whole 600,000 years? Really?

These isotopes aren't used for dating, anyhow. Nowhere in the article does it state that C14 decay rates changed, and that's the primary isotope used in dating.

Except here where it shows c14 dating doesn't always correlate:

*There is reason for skepticism. Age dating methods do not always produce correlating results. [See links below.] Wood buried in igneous rock in Queensland Australia has been dated to 40,000 years, while the basalt around it dated to 45 million years. Both dating subjects should have given the same date, since the igneous rock was formed at the same time the wood was buried (and the wood still had plenty of carbon-14 in it).*

One last thing. Before you make any mention of the daughter isotope being already present in the sample, you should probably think once about what the daughter isotope is, anyway. As far as I can see, the daughter isotope of C14 is nitrogen 14.

In short, for this objection to make sense, dinosaurs must have eaten more nitrogen than other animals! What's even more interesting is that there would be a correlation between nitrogen eating and going extinct...

So I guess dinosaurs must've gone extinct because they tried to eat air, or what?

This sounds like a load-a crap for an explanation.

Is that the best you could come up with?

 

[The Engineer]

There have been reported incidents of fluctuations in the decay rates, as was pointed out here.

His claims were refuted by RickG before he even made the post. One or two posts later, I refuted it, again.

Talk about memory problems.

Wow!

A whole 600,000 years? Really?

You didn't understand it, at all.

IF those isotopes HAD been used, THEN there would be an increased error margin of less than one percent.
They AREN'T used, however.

What I wanted to say was, even if your premises were true, then the conclusions wouldn't support your views.

How can a person who bases his whole worldview on a book have such a bad reading comprehension?

EDIT:

This sounds like a load-a crap for an explanation.

Is that the best you can come up with?

Dude, that's not an explanation, that's an argumentum ad absurdum!

I'll go back and edit my post. Seems like I have to make a disclaimer for people who can't understand obvious mockery.

 

[Doveaman]

You didn't understand it, at all.

IF those isotopes HAD been used, THEN there would be an increased error margin of less than one percent.

There certainly was an error margin here:

*There is reason for skepticism. Age dating methods do not always produce correlating results. [See links below.] Wood buried in igneous rock in Queensland Australia has been dated to 40,000 years, while the basalt around it dated to 45 million years. Both dating subjects should have given the same date, since the igneous rock was formed at the same time the wood was buried (and the wood still had plenty of carbon-14 in it).*

 

[RickG]

Typical.

I guess you didn't read my reply to your post, did you. We really didn't disagree. We were actually talking about two different things. His was directed toward your video and mine was directed both toward the video and a paper you cited earlier; mostly the latter.

 

[RickG]

There certainly was an error margin here:

*There is reason for skepticism. Age dating methods do not always produce correlating results. [See links below.] Wood buried in igneous rock in Queensland Australia has been dated to 40,000 years, while the basalt around it dated to 45 million years. Both dating subjects should have given the same date, since the igneous rock was formed at the same time the wood was buried (and the wood still had plenty of carbon-14 in it).*

More dishonest misrepresentation from a creationist web site.

The igneous rock and wood were not formed at the same time. The geochronologists were asked to date the volcanic ash in the vicinity of the archeological site. They did and correctly dated the volcanic ash. What the archeologists should have asked was for the site to be dated. They did not.

Are you an alternate of Zaius? We had this same discussion just a few months ago including the misrepresented oscillating decays rates.

Again, why do you persist in posting material that is so obviously misrepresented? Are you purposely trying to make young earth proponents bad? I apologize for asking that, but it seems so obvious, especially to those of us so familiar with radiometric dating methods. Even a 101 geology student can see the absurdity in your posts.

 

[The Engineer]

There certainly was an error margin here:

*There is reason for skepticism. Age dating methods do not always produce correlating results. [See links below.] Wood buried in igneous rock in Queensland Australia has been dated to 40,000 years, while the basalt around it dated to 45 million years. Both dating subjects should have given the same date, since the igneous rock was formed at the same time the wood was buried (and the wood still had plenty of carbon-14 in it).*

I don't think the site you linked to is very credible. It doesn't seem very neutral, and it doesn't link to any peer reviewed papers, as far as I can see. In fact, many of the claims it makes are not supported at all, or at least it's impossible to find the source for any individual claim without first looking through all seven or so links that are on the site.

Sometimes, the datings are off, yes, but no one denies that. That's why scientists cross-reference different dating methods before they assign dates to something.

You still weren't capable of showing us how radiocarbodating is consistently wrong.

 

[Orogeny]

False.

Right. Tell the professional sedimentologist and stratigrapher that you know more about sedimentology and stratigraphy than he does. I bet that'll work.

Sediment is being laid down in layers simultaneous in a vertical position as the ends of each layer progresses forward together in a lateral direction, with the lower layer slightly ahead.

Emphasis mine. See where you contradicted yourself? As I have already said, this is a matter of scale. The beds ARE diacronous at any vertical position, even if it is only by a few seconds. Likewise, a single bed is diacronous laterally, even if it's only by a few seconds. I demonstrated this already, but here's a figure that might help you understand:

Note that at any one time (the easiest to understand here is the present, or the sea floor), all environments (beds, if you prefer) are being deposited. Yet they are stacked vertically at any one location.

It is a simultaneous lateral progression of all the vertical layers together, and it shows that the leading end of each layer in their lateral progression is always younger than the rest of the layer, because the leading end is being laid down last.

That's right, and is nothing more than a summary of what I described in the very post you're quoting and above. Why are you acting like this is a revelation?

This means that fossils laid down in the leading end of the lower layer could have been laid down after the fossils in the upper layer, which would also mean that the fossils in the lower layer can be the same age or even younger than the fossils in the upper layer.

OK. Once again, geologists DO NOT claim that any one bed is deposited simultaneously or instantaneously. It is exactly because they are not that when we sample for fossils, we do so in as near as possible to a vertical transect so that we can constrain lateral variation. If you think geologists haven't figured this out yet, you sorely underestimate us.

Yes, I'm being deceived by scientists once again. Silly me.

You may be being deceived by pseudoscientists. But we real scientists will try our best to help you understand nature. Whether or not you have the will or the capacity is another story.

You know what's weird about all this? It's that scientists A is telling me that scientists B is making a misstep, and scientists B is telling me that scientists A is making a misstep. Makes me wonder why I even bother listening to scientists at all, because they don't even listen to each other

Seeing as I've walked you step-by-step through the relatively simple logic of Walther's law and demonstrated that it is viable, it would appear that we know which of us is telling you the truth.

Bro, it's my job to understand sediments and how they are deposited. I spend the majority of my work day and quite a bit of my free time thinking about stratigraphy. Think about my explanations and attempt to understand them.

 

[Loudmouth]

De Nile is a river in Egypt.

It shows how sediments can be laid down in some cases, which refutes your theory of gradualism and fossil ages.

It does not show how fossils can be sorted so that they correlate with the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks around them. How does the video demonstrate that dinosaurs will always be found under rock that contains a ratio of K/Ar that is consistent with 65 million years of decay?

Simply making layers is not enough. It is an infantile attempt to explain away the geologic data.

 

[Jamin4422]

Dating is done with the preconceived notion that the Earth started off as a molten blob. The Bible says the Earth was initially covered in water.

You are talking about different beginnings.
Jesus said: "I am Alpha[FONT=arial, sans-serif] and [/FONT]Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I am God, and there is none like me.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I make known the end from the beginning,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]from ancient times, what is still to come.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I say: My purpose will stand,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]and I will do all that I please.
Isa 46
[/FONT]

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think the site you linked to is very credible. It doesn't seem very neutral, and it doesn't link to any peer reviewed papers, as far as I can see. In fact, many of the claims it makes are not supported at all, or at least it's impossible to find the source for any individual claim without first looking through all seven or so links that are on the site.

Sure, find fault with the site instead of the reported observation.

Sometimes, the datings are off, yes, but no one denies that.

So your dating methods are sometimes wrong. Great.

That's why scientists cross-reference different dating methods before they assign dates to something.
You still weren't capable of showing us how radiocarbodating is consistently wrong.

I’m not in a position to say they are consistently wrong, but the fact that they do not always correlate gives me reason to believe they are not consistently right. That’s bad enough.

 

[Doveaman]

More dishonest misrepresentation from a creationist web site.

Yeah, it’s the site’s fault that your dating methods do not always correlate.

The igneous rock and wood were not formed at the same time. The geochronologists were asked to date the volcanic ash in the vicinity of the archeological site. They did and correctly dated the volcanic ash. What the archeologists should have asked was for the site to be dated. They did not.

I don’t have any confidence in this explanation at all, since many fossilized trees are found buried upright in many layers of sedimentary rock.

Are you purposely trying to make young earth proponents bad?

Do young earth proponents look good at any time from your perspective?

You seem to have a problem with every creationist’s website simply because it’s a creationist’s website, as if there can be no truth on a creationist’s website. You guys are very good at covering up your flaws and mistakes, so it’s good to have other websites to report those flaws so we can examine them for ourselves and form our own conclusions, especially when it is obvious your peer review process is often biased.

I apologize for asking that, but it seems so obvious, especially to those of us so familiar with radiometric dating methods. Even a 101 geology student can see the absurdity in your posts.

What’s absurd is the fact that many fossilized trees are found buried upright in many layers of sedimentary rock and you still want us to believe that the lower layers around those trees are millions of years older than the upper layers around those same trees.


By the way, I came across this website explaining your dating methods. It doesn’t appear to be a creationist’s website. It apparently was created by students majoring in biology, chemistry, and geology from Carleton College as part of their Methods of Teaching Science course instructed by Professor Debby Walser-Kuntz.

They were some things mentioned that I found interesting:

*Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old. This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but teachers should note that this technique will not work on older fossils…

There are a few categories of artifacts that cannot be dated using carbon-14. First, carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diets, as well...

Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures…

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparison with other dating methods.

Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air over the last few decades. This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms.*


Based on this explanation, I think my skepticism about your dating methods is justified.

 

[Doveaman]

Right. Tell the professional sedimentologist and stratigrapher that you know more about sedimentology and stratigraphy than he does. I bet that'll work.

I’m not the one who did the experiment in the video. I’m simply reffering to it.

Emphasis mine. See where you contradicted yourself? As I have already said, this is a matter of scale. The beds ARE diacronous at any vertical position, even if it is only by a few seconds. Likewise, a single bed is diacronous laterally, even if it's only by a few seconds. I demonstrated this already

Those few seconds are minor and doesn’t change the fact that the beds are being laid down together in a lateral direction from upstream to downstream. This observation pokes a big hole in your claims about fossils found in the geological column, since fossils in the upper beds can be the same age and even older than fossils in the lower beds.

OK. Once again, geologists DO NOT claim that any one bed is deposited simultaneously or instantaneously. It is exactly because they are not that when we sample for fossils,

I’m sure many who are reading this thread will be happy to hear that, because that certainly was my impression.

we do so in as near as possible to a vertical transect so that we can constrain lateral variation. If you think geologists haven't figured this out yet, you sorely underestimate us.

In other words, you are trying to create order from chaos. Got it.

 

[Doveaman]

It does not show how fossils can be sorted so that they correlate with the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks around them. How does the video demonstrate that dinosaurs will always be found under rock that contains a ratio of K/Ar that is consistent with 65 million years of decay?

I’m not denying dinosaur fossils are old and can be found together during a rapid burial.

I’m simply saying that some fossils found in strata on top dinosaur fossils can be the same age or even older than the dinosaur fossils themselves as the layers of strata are laid down in a lateral direction.

 

[Loudmouth]

I’m not denying dinosaur fossils are old and can be found together during a rapid burial.

Where did you show that they were buried rapidly? Can you describe a geologic feature that could NOT be produced in a rapid fashion by a flood?

Also, you are ignoring the correlation between the fossil and the dating of the rocks around them by the ration of isotopes in the rocks. Flooding can not do this.

I’m simply saying that some fossils found in strata on top dinosaur fossils can be the same age or even older than the dinosaur fossils themselves as the layers of strata are laid down in a lateral direction.

That still ignores the correlation between the fossil and the ration of isotopes in the surrounding igneous rock. It applies above and below the K/T boundary.

 

[Loudmouth]

I’m not the one who did the experiment in the video. I’m simply reffering to it.

The video is irrelevant. It doesn't demonstrate how we get a relationship between the age of the rocks and the fossils in the rocks. It also doesn't explain how you get features thousands of feet thick that are made up of life:

"Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."
Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn, The Geological Evolution of North America, (New York: The Ronald Press, 1960), p. 86-88

How does a flood produce trillions of sea lilies, enough to stack 2,000 feet high? The answer is simple. It can't. The only way you can create these types of deposits is through slow accumulation.

Those few seconds are minor and doesn’t change the fact that the beds are being laid down together in a lateral direction from upstream to downstream.

What is not minor is that these mechanisms are incapable of producing the features that we see in geologic record.

This observation pokes a big hole in your claims about fossils found in the geological column, since fossils in the upper beds can be the same age and even older than fossils in the lower beds.

Radiometric dating says otherwise.

 

[Doveaman]

Where did you show that they were buried rapidly?

They could have.

Can you describe a geologic feature that could NOT be produced in a rapid fashion by a flood?

No. But I suppose they are some.

Also, you are ignoring the correlation between the fossil and the dating of the rocks around them by the ration of isotopes in the rocks. Flooding can not do this.
That still ignores the correlation between the fossil and the ration of isotopes in the surrounding igneous rock. It applies above and below the K/T boundary.

This assumes your dating methods are accurate. Many scientists don't share that assumption. Nor do I. Especially when young tree fossils are found buried upright in different layers of rocks.