The unearthing of whale skeletons in a desert ignites a debate of creationism versus evolution., page 7

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?

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.

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.

reply to post by MrXYZ

---

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


bye

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: