It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Red Blood Cells from T-Rex? Just how old are they?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

As The Science of Evolution explains: “Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth’s history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’” (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).






The potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating method, used to date lava flows, also has problems—as shown by studies of Mount St. Helens. “The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 + OR - 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from this same dacite give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.35 + OR - .06 Ma to 2.8 + OR - 0.6 Ma. These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous (since we know the rock formed recently). The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data.



In layman’s terms, these volcanic rocks that we know were formed in 1986—less than 20 years ago—were “scientifically” dated to between 290,000 and 3.4 million years old!
Such examples serve to illustrate the fallibility of the dating methods on which many modern scientists rely so heavily.



Serious Problems With Dating Methods

This was not the one I read over the weekend but the information is the same, maybe better.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
But why would you date rocks just produced with a method (K-Ar) best suited to dating rocks over 100,000 years?



[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
But why would you date rocks just produced with a method (K-Ar) best suited to dating rocks over 100,000 years?


Well that is a good question, but it does present the fact that there are issues with the 'dating' mechanisms out there.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
when used incorrectly, it's not surprising...



All dating the KT boundary.

I'm sorry, Ed, but when used correctly these methods give great results.

Dozens of different analyses, from a range of materials, with different methods, from different labs, from several different locations across the world of KT boundary material. And data between 63.7 and 66 million years. That's great stuff.

ABE: here'a another. These are measuring mulitple impact craters in the triassic from a Schumacher-Levy type event:

Crater Country Diameter 10^6yrBP Dating Method
Manicouagan Canada 100 km 214 ± 1 U-Pb on zircons
Saint Martin Canada 40 km 219 ± 32 Rb/Sr
Rochechouart France 25 km 214 ± 8 Ar/Ar laser spot fusion
Obolon Ukraine 15 km 215 ± 25 stratigraphic
Red Wing USA 9 km 200 ± 25 stratigraphic

www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

So, that's five different craters all from the same event measured between 214-219 (-/+ 1 to 8) million years by radiodating and 200-215 (-/+ 25) by stratiography. Again, great stuff.

And I know you'd love to see more, I aim to please, so here goes...

Dating three different meteorites:



That's dates between 4.48 and 4.6 billion years for the Allende, 4.44 and 4.46 billion yrs for Guarena, and 4.38 and 4.5 billion years for St Severin.

Not bad, eh? This sort of data provides the estimate of the age of the solar system - about 4.5 billion years.

Now, notice, there are different techniques here, which have different natural 'clocks' (i.e. differing half-life), and the results correlate very highly.

ABE: if you don't trust a godless heathen like me, take it from a christian physicist:

www.asa3.org...

[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
So are they foolproof? What about the discrepancies that pop up, by large factors? Sure there are good methods but they are not always accurate.



As The Science of Evolution explains: “Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth’s history . . . It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’” (William Stansfield, 1977, pp. 80, 84).



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
So are they foolproof? What about the discrepancies that pop up, by large factors? Sure there are good methods but they are not always accurate.


When used properly they give good data, even better when a number of the different techniques are used. They provide cross-validation. If you want an absolute date to the exact week, then these are no good. But on geological timescales, they do their stuff.

But only if used correctly, that means within the optimal timeframes, on the correct materials, in the correct fashion.

As for the quote, I would probably think in 1977 he wasn't far wrong. We are 30 years on now. And if we use the techniques correctly, we can get very good data. Like the stuff I've just posted.

ABE: Oh, and that quote is a quote-mine. In the very next sentence Stansfield says:

"The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists, but their overall interpretation supports the concept of a long history of geological evolution. The flaws in radiometric dating methods are considered by creationists to be sufficient justification for denying their use as evidence against the young earth theory."


[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I would agree for the most part, as I have said I am not necessarily a 'young earth' type, but I would not rule it out either.

I mean what are the ramifications if C from (e=mc^2) is not constant? What does that do for the billions of years? Sure the heavier elements take a long time and even to 2nd generation stars, but what if....good arguments can be made from both sides.

I have even read a 'kabala' interpretation of the Genesis account that was eye opening for sure.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
I mean what are the ramifications if C from (e=mc^2) is not constant? What does that do for the billions of years? Sure the heavier elements take a long time and even to 2nd generation stars, but what if....good arguments can be made from both sides.


If c is not constant, then who knows. It would affect all of physics in the most uncomfortable of ways. Luckily there is no real evidence that is the case. Some do think that c was higher in the very early period of the universe, but again, no evidence this was the case.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninIf c is not constant, then who knows. It would affect all of physics in the most uncomfortable of ways. Luckily there is no real evidence that is the case. Some do think that c was higher in the very early period of the universe, but again, no evidence this was the case.


Wow we can agree on something! Cool.

Actually for evidence , I have read some things but don't buy into it yet. that quantum mechanics stuff gets really deep, well beyond my comfort factor.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
If c is not constant, then who knows. It would affect all of physics in the most uncomfortable of ways. Luckily there is no real evidence that is the case. Some do think that c was higher in the very early period of the universe, but again, no evidence this was the case.


indeed, the questioning of a constant C seems to be a fabrication of certain pseudoscientists. there is no legitimate science behind it.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulindeed, the questioning of a constant C seems to be a fabrication of certain pseudoscientists. there is no legitimate science behind it.


Well actually some that are proposing that are just that scientists. they are delving into the quantum mechanical world at the point of the big bang and apparently classical physics hints that it changes or at least changed at some point but this is out there and beyond my ability or my patience to even learn.


I do have a book on the subject lined up though..



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Just a couple of things to add.

When talking about theoretical problems with dating methods, it is probably not a good idea to cite a religious source and not a science source. That severely diminishes credibility as there is a clear agenda involved. That is the problem with the source Edsinger provided. Dating methods have been cross checked with other methods and there is a clear record of accuracy to a good extent.

You may be interested to note that they have recently announced the finding of 8 million year old bacteria, and when they thawed it out, it became active. I see nothing impossible about finding Dino blood cells. We have fossils from over 3 Billion years ago and discovering that more recent specimens may have non petrified flesh is something that to me seems reasonable.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terapin
When talking about theoretical problems with dating methods, it is probably not a good idea to cite a religious source and not a science source. That severely diminishes credibility as there is a clear agenda involved. That is the problem with the source Edsinger provided.


Oh I would agree in one sense but I would like to also add that 'most' scientists also has their own agenda in regards to Creation.

I guess both sides of this argument have 'tunnel vision'. Nevertheless, it is ok in my mind to quote or source other lines of thought. That is how debate works.

I would agree to reference a scientist with a creationist viewpoint would be better and they are getting easier to find but are still in the minority.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
What about science just for science sake? Does it have to be a creationist scientist? That directly implies an agenda.

Better to simply look at the data and how it is derived. It was not all that long ago that Biblicaly What about science just for science sake? Does it have to be a creationist scientist? That directly implies an agenda.

Better to simply look at the data and how it is derived. It was not all that long ago that biblically minded people claimed that dinosaurs never existed and that God just placed the bones there to keep us busy, or that the Devil placed them to tempt man away from the truth. I'd rather just look at the data free from any theological slant.

These potential blood cells are well worth studying and I see no reason to doubt such a posibility.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TerapinWhat about science just for science sake? Does it have to be a creationist scientist? That directly implies an agenda.


Well there is a reason for it, some scientists especially cellular biologists understand that the universe had a beginning so the time available is finite, and that life could not have formed by chance. The odds are so outlandish. The odds of either all left handed or right handed so to speak amino acids forming in just the right order at just the right time to make the right protein are immense. They understand the huge difference between microevolution and macroevolution.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I would find it odd, in a world and universe without anything constant or permanent for something like isotope and carbon levels to remain constant to suit a particular group of scientists theories ... that assumption itself tends to lend itself to making life easier for figuring things out, doesn't it? To me, it sounds like 11th grade honors physics class, where we always ran calculations 'in a vacuum'. I mean, if we were supposedly bombarded by asteroids and comets for millions/billions of years, that alone would seem to mean that our levels would not be constant at all, then add the resulting environmental changes from large impacts, massive volcanic activities, etc. In fact, it would seem the only true constant is CHANGE. I believe the expanding planets theory more than any supposed scientific dating or other universe creation theory (which the big bang is just that ... while as religion is a different kind of Creation theory).

If we weren't there at the time, ALL of the science is based on guesses and assumptions ... regardless of creationism or evolution. The only way you could state any of it as FACT, is if we were around and recording with accurate instruments throughout time ... now, if they have used time machines and verified, please explain and give us links, otherwise, you are just arguing for no reason. Anyone with an independent mind and a high IQ should be able to separate themselves from what it taught, what is assumed, what is real. Most of what is taught, is what is assumed. We have made big mistakes in having too much faith in science, and many times thinking we have found all the answers ... we really have no idea.

Some may think, well, it is proven rather accurate ... tell me how? because a group of scientists expecting results are getting them? It is like those who try to set up models of the solar system ... if they tweak enough, they can get anything to look the way they want it to, but, that doesn't mean they found the answer. As far as I am concerned, all of this so-called dating systems are less believable than ufos actually being flown by hyper-evolved chickens from the year 9595. I am sure if science believed this, they would find ways to prove that is how life was established on earth, wouldn't make it true.

What we seem to forget, there is a difference between humans perceived reality and the TRUTH. I hate using common things to relate, but they work ... 1000 years ago, the earth was flat, the sun revolved around us ... imagine what people from 1000 years from now will think of our so-called facts and theories!!! (if we are still around)

I wish more people would take a step back and try to see things from an unbiased perspective. No matter what faith you have (religion, science, both, neither) ... try to look at things pure and untainted. Don't let the information that was drilled into you from childhood, or information from so-called experts be taken for fact ... but take everything with a grain of salt. Use you minds and see things for yourself, come up with your own theories and solutions. These people are just that ... equal human beings. That piece of paper doesn't make them correct, or better than anyone else. What were people before degrees? We have been a bit brainwashed to the definition of intelligence and giving too much respect and power to people who study a bunch of books. We all have it within us to figure stuff out, and when we all think for ourselves and think outside the lines, bigger discoveries await us.

There will be blind followers and blind naysayers in every generation and time ... but those who can see without filters will always find the truth ... though we progress in baby steps, we come a long way in the end.

I don't believe the timelines set forth by these scientists ... do I have the answers? no. But I don't take everything they claim for its face value ... if I did, and something came along to change that and disprove it, it would be hard to shake that mis-laid foundation. I know it sounds awfully silly to think that us humans with our crude technology think we figured out how to date and perceive millions and billions of years with levels of isotopes and minerals. Quite a stretch, one for a good science fiction novel. But leave it as theories and concepts. It is NOT provable FACT. Is is gross assumptions, beliefs, and leaps of faith about things we really know nothing about in the big picture. Not that we shouldn't try, we just shouldn't come to such unfounded, solid conclusions.

You will never be able to prove to me dinosaurs are 65+ million years old short of a time machine ... then, whose to say the dating of said machine is accurate. I guess the only ones that really know are the alligators, crocidiles, and others species we don't know of to still exist yet ... if we don't kill them off. Though we can't communicate, they have been around longer than we have ... through the eons, defined by your own science.

In all honesty, depending on what has happened, dinosaurs could have been walking around with the people of Atlantis 10000 years ago, then, there was a nuclear war that pounded us all back into the stone age (while the technology destroyed, decaying, and eventually disappearing ... rust is awful to exposed metal over a few thousand years), wiped out the large animals, such as dinosaurs, and the resulting clouds of dust and debris, volcanic activity, earthquakes, floods, etc. could have been what buried the degraded bones ... some of which could have been liqiufied into petroleum. A few straggling remainders is what made the mythical dragons and beasts as they slowly died out, not to be seen today. The reason we don't pick up radioactivity could be the life of the isotopes, or, a different type of weapon than we have developed, which leaves different traces and signatures ... that could very well mislead current scientists and technologies to false dates and assumptions.

Do I believe that happened, not saying I do, I just made it up off the top of my head ... but it makes just as much sense to me as what science claims at times.

Please, don't take me as being argumentative or manipulative ... I just try to get people to see things from a different perspective ... take a step back and open their minds for just a moment ... then go back to thinking whatever makes you comfortable and sleep well at night!



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Interesting and well written. Thank You for the good read and the good questions you raise.



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


You're assuming ancient dates, and interpreting actual, observable evidence in light of that a priori assumption.

Why not just stick to observable facts?



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Even if they are there, there's no chance of a Jurassic-Park event happening because of them



posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 


Science never, ever says anything is a fact. Proof exists only in mathematics. All science can say is "this is the best guess we have, and so far it has been entirely accurate, allowing us to predict outcomes".

But please, keep on slinging mud at science because you don't understand it. Brilliant.

Science is not a faith - it is a methodology, pure and simple. Don't try to bring science down to the level of religion. It is far above that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join