The unearthing of whale skeletons in a desert ignites a debate of creationism versus evolution.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Barcs

 

So barcs if:

.. C-14 dating is used to date things within recent times. The other methods aren't based on c-14, and can be used to date older layers.

Then why do evolutionist used the dates gathered from other methods other than the c14 method?

For example - this report:

Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution

www.sciencedaily.com...

edit on 4-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)

Because C-14 doesn't allow them to date back as far?? They are using different radiometric dating methods depending on the timeframes involved.

Originally posted by edmc^2

.. C-14 dating is used to date things within recent times. The other methods aren't based on c-14, and can be used to date older layers.

Then why do evolutionist used the dates gathered from other methods other than the c14 method?

For example - this report:

Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution

www.sciencedaily.com...

I'm not even sure what your question is or what your link is supposed to prove. Evolutionary scientists, geologists and paleontologists date fossils using different methods that all verify one another (what is an evolutionist????). C14 is accurate up to a certain amount of time, but other methods can date much further back due to long half lives. Why do you accept that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, but don't believe that fossils can be more than 10,000 years old? So the earth just sat around doing nothing for 4.49999 billion years, then all of a sudden life appeared in all its diversity suddenly? You need to provide evidence of THAT, instead of questioning known good dating methods that all verify one another. C-14 can only be used for fossils with carbon14 and from recent times. So if they unearth a fossil from 20,000 years ago it can be dated using that method. If they unearth a dinosaur fossil it will have to be one or more of the other methods. It's not that complicated.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Because C-14 doesn't allow them to date back as far?? They are using different radiometric dating methods depending on the timeframes involved.

And that's exactly my point!

Paleontologist / Evolutionist - knew that C14 is very limited - in fact it's proving quite the opposite of what they've predicted in their theories - that man evolved millions and millions of years ago - according to the fossil records.

Yet when subjected to the real c14 test - most if not all of the time the result comes back within the predicted half-life range!

So what to do?

Like I said they borrowed the tool used by geologists - for dating igneous rocks - Radiometric Dating

That is:

...the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

So using this tool - they found a way to achieve the impossible - move man's age further back in time.

Of course the gullible got taken so easily and evolutionist hailed it a success.

Ignoring the fact that it's all a lie!

But since you're so convince of this - tell me this then, what do paleontologist - evolutionist dating when using radiometric dating as mentioned in the above quote?

Is it the "fossil" or the igneous rock?

reply to post by Barcs

I'm not even sure what your question is or what your link is supposed to prove. Evolutionary scientists, geologists and paleontologists date fossils using different methods that all verify one another (what is an evolutionist????). C14 is accurate up to a certain amount of time, but other methods can date much further back due to long half lives. Why do you accept that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, but don't believe that fossils can be more than 10,000 years old? So the earth just sat around doing nothing for 4.49999 billion years, then all of a sudden life appeared in all its diversity suddenly? You need to provide evidence of THAT, instead of questioning known good dating methods that all verify one another. C-14 can only be used for fossils with carbon14 and from recent times. So if they unearth a fossil from 20,000 years ago it can be dated using that method. If they unearth a dinosaur fossil it will have to be one or more of the other methods. It's not that complicated

Same question to you - when using the Radiometric Dating method, that is:

the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

What are they actually dating? The "fossil" or the igneous rock?

As for your q:

Why do you accept that the earth is 4.5 billions years old, but don't believe that fossils can be more than 10,000 years old?

I have no problem with "fossils" having an estimated age of 10,000 if all the assumed (Uppsala) conditions are met. Also it is still within the half-life of radiocarbon.

The problem is when statements like the one below is made - without explaining what was the source of the age and what process was used.

Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution

To repeat what you said:

C14 is accurate up to a certain amount of time, but other methods can date much further back due to long half lives.

What was it then that they dated to get the age? Was it The "Fossil" or the igneous rock?

As for this:

what is an evolutionist????

Ask Prof. Richard Dawkins - What is an Angry Evolutionists?

Since we're kinda talkin about fish out of water, it got me thinking about oil. Oil as in petrol rather than chilli flavoured olive oil with your sardines. Just out of curiosity, how do the creationists explain oil? I don;t know, that is why I am asking, rather than trying to wind folks up...

Originally posted by edmc^2
Same question to you - when using the Radiometric Dating method, what are they actually dating? The "fossil" or the igneous rock?

Technically the fossil is made out of the same thing as the layer it is found in, so they actually date both of them using one or more of the various dating methods. Do a little reading about how sedimentary layers form and create various types of rock and the fossils found within.

The problem is when statements like the one below is made - without explaining what was the source of the age and what process was used.

They aren't going to give every last little detail in an online article. If you want to find out the answer, you need to read the actual research documents and studies, not a summary article of a study that's probably pages upon pages. Ask a scientist. The information is certainly available.

reply to post by Barcs

Technically the fossil is made out of the same thing as the layer it is found in, so they actually date both of them using one or more of the various dating methods. Do a little reading about how sedimentary layers form and create various types of rock and the fossils found within.

So "technically" speaking if the fossil IS no longer a "fossil" but a rock - then they are actually dating the "rock" - correct?

SO if they are carbon dating the "rock" - what are they looking for then?

C14 or the other radioactive isotopes?

I say they are counting the number of the other isotopes (rubidium/strontium or thorium/lead or potassium/argon, argon/argon or uranium/lead).

Because if not how can they say that:

Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution

if:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, ... the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

know what I mean?

So what say you - were they looking for c14 or the other isotopes - in order to come up with the figure quoted above?

Do I smell conspiracy or hiding the truth?

As for:

They aren't going to give every last little detail in an online article.

I wonder why? Hmmm...

A simple one liner like "dating method based on c14" will suffice.

Obviously they aren't using C14 dating to date something 60 millions years old. They are using one of the other methods as I stated, as you stated, as other have stated. I'm really confused as to the point you are trying to make.

reply to post by edmc^2

Unfortunately, Paleontologist who are bent on proving evolution to be a fact use the same "tool" used by geologists in order to prove that fossils are millions of years old. Which obviously resulted in many known errors and confusions.

Wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles!

At last, after pages upon pages of blether and havering, edmc^2 states his case.

And it turns out to be... poppycock.

Hands up everyone who was surprised.

Originally posted by Barcs
Obviously they aren't using C14 dating to date something 60 millions years old. They are using one of the other methods as I stated, as you stated, as other have stated. I'm really confused as to the point you are trying to make.

edit on 5-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Just saying that a "160 myo fossil" doesn't mean the "fossil" per se - but actually the igneous rock that is 160 myo.

Of course paleontologist will say "160 myo fossil" in order to prove their claim.

A quick Q:

How much radiocarbon do you think is left on a "60 myo fossil"?

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by Barcs
Obviously they aren't using C14 dating to date something 60 millions years old. They are using one of the other methods as I stated, as you stated, as other have stated. I'm really confused as to the point you are trying to make.

edit on 5-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

Just saying that a "160 myo fossil" doesn't mean the "fossil" per se - but actually the igneous rock that is 160 myo.

Of course paleontologist will say "160 myo fossil" in order to prove their claim.

A quick Q:

How much radiocarbon do you think is left on a "60 myo fossil"?

You really have to read up on radiometric dating if you think scientists use carbon dating for fossils 60m years old

People have told you tons of times in this thread, but for some reason you simply refuse to read...THERE'S OTHER RADIOMETRIC DATING METHODS THAN CARBON DATING!!!!!!!!!

Do you bother researching the subjects your discussing? Because it sure doesn't seem so

Here's a quote from Barcs just a few replies up:

Obviously they aren't using C14 dating to date something 60 millions years old. They are using one of the other methods as I stated, as you stated, as other have stated. I'm really confused as to the point you are trying to make.

Instead of going "mhhhhh, I might be uneducated on the subject I'm discussing...I need to do some research", you simply ignored that and kept on repeating your nonsense instead of doing the little bit of research it takes to not look like a fool

damn double posts

reply to post by MrXYZ


Creating a new thread to properly address the "fossil record".


bye

We have something of an update for this thread - they've found a possible reason for the mass graveyard. www.bbc.co.uk...

edmc^2




Life can only come from life!

somewhat accurate however to be more accurate "life can only come from PREEXISTING life"

it's best explained in this movie review of The Tree of Life...

"There is a spiritual awareness here as it shows us the majesty and mystery of our universe, allowing the audience to watch as events taking place on a large scale will inevitably unite all of us living out our singular lives. Throughout one breathtaking sequence, the audience is shown the creation of life on Earth. On a macro level, we watch as planets move through galaxies, and on a micro level witness the division of cells to create new life. Both symbolize the constant evolution of all living things, visually showing us how everything new is created from a part of something preexisting.
The film’s central metaphor of a tree is one of the most simple and beautiful that it has to offer. A tree will live for many years, existing to witness several generations of family life, with its branches and roots symbolizing the connections we all share to each other. Just as the universe was created at the dawn of existence and continues to move forward in ways both singular and universal, when the tree falls, the seed it leaves behind will spring forth into new life."

I feel like this is a good reality check for those who have lost a loved one out of the blue for no apparent reason and need to understand why.... which is fairly simple... from death comes life. The killer is the creator as is the creator is the killer.

I'm pretty sure the OP is Ken Ham...same arguments, same willful ignorance

reply to post by Prezbo369


What ever happened to MrXYZ, does any one know? I miss that guy, if anyone knows please PM me.

reply to post by flyingfish


He's converted to Catholicism and retired to a Benedictine Abbey to contemplate life's origins as per the Holy Scriptures....

reply to post by Daedal


No biggy, no spooky science here. They died in the ocean due to an overabundance of toxic plant life. They died together and then drifted in during higher than normal tide. Covered in sand they remained there in great shape. No crazy reason but it is cool.

The Bot

stumason
reply to post by flyingfish

 

He's converted to Catholicism and retired to a Benedictine Abbey to contemplate life's origins as per the Holy Scriptures....

Very funny.

MrXYZ, is a well traveled, highly intelligent intellectual, I doubt (unless he received a lobotomy) that he would fall for such ridiculous nonsense.