Carbon dating is generally useful up to about 100 years back in time, but after that it becomes exponentially unreliable. An item 100 years old can be shown to be 800 years old by carbon dating.
Noah's Ark
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
Carbon dating is generally useful up to about 100 years back in time, but after that it becomes exponentially unreliable. An item 100 years old can be shown to be 800 years old by carbon dating.
Didn't answer the question. Why do we find a progressive sequence in the strata. Or, why do we NOT find mixing of different species, or the total omission of some? For example, we won't find flowering plants below a certain point, and we won't find any of some species beyond a certain point.
And varves can't form in flood waters.
Carbon dating isn't the only isotope used, nor is it used at all in situations we're discussing.
You were born with an open mind, that's why you learned quickly. As adults we are supposed to conform to the norm, that's closing down again.
Huh? The post says Jameson lied. His task was to present Cuvier's findings to English readers. But he didn't like them. So he changed them.
This is exactly what the Creationist movement is all about - deception. It goes against science in the worst way. Science can not tolerate dishonesty. Mistakes are one thing, and there are checks and balances to correct for errors. But deliberate lying and deception is another thing. I'm waiting for you to come clean. You are propounding a thesis that attaches to a sense of divine purpose, which invariably is accompanied by a policy of honesty. But you appear to be dead set on altering the truth.
This is no doubt why several science minded folks have joined in at this point. They are advocating for truth. So far I count Origin, Capt K, Grumpy, Rhaedas, arfa brane and yazata in the past 24 hrs or so.
What is the truth about the Earth's natural history? That's the core question. How can we know the truth? That's what everyone's bringing to the table.
Truth can not be invented. It has to be observed, measured, recorded, evaluated, studied, tested, proven, disseminated, that kind of thing.
Obviously you are not a scientist so I'm not surprised you don't approach the question the same way. Nevertheless, you have inserted yourself in a way that eliminates the possibility of making any of the objective movements toward truth such as those I just mentioned.
That's where I have to pause and question your honesty. Maybe it's just your manner of expressing yourself. You are obviously trying to refrain from delivering the "12-point system", or whatever it was that you were alluding to. In any case, until you confront the facts about natural history, that is, the best evidence, how can you proceed as if you are trying to be honest? And note, it's not personal ethics anyone cares about. It's science. Without honesty there can be no science. Which makes this mashup sort of weird.
The Bible is incorrect on a thousand points of information. I cited the river that flows into the land of the Kush. It's striking because it reveals they had no idea what the world was, where places were, how big it was, etc. and to ignore this bigger picture (Biblical criticism) while reading the Flood account literally is representative of the particular form of dishonesty seen in the Creationist movement.
Uh . . . when you invent terminology like <common science> we need a definition. You are expressing a grudge since science and fundamentalism are at odds. But the question remains: are you inferring you have an <uncommon science>? What on Zeus' green earth are you talking about? So far all I see is pseudoscience. Why would you propound science at all when you've obviously not studied it? Again, this speaks to honesty. The unassuming untrained person would call on the experts and ask for guidance.
Huh? I run with the truth, that's why I kept saying "Numbers are good. Numbers are your friend." There are objective measures by which we can keep all of this straight. Calculating helps. And we need the insight and evidence from experts like Sir Charles Lyell and Darwin, and modern resources like the NASA satellites, the USGS, folks like that. There are international journals on geology that have been publishing for over a century. I doubt you've read a single one. Why would you dismiss as <common science> something you have never laid eyes on?
This is about facts. And the facts are, there was no mass extinction in the human era. There are countless examples. But your rubber earth model has kind of stopped the show.
There was plenty of time before and after the flood that varves could have formed. As to your predictable layers, there are plenty of them, as many as there are unpredictable ones.
What does carbon dating have to do with this? We're talking about terrain that's been unaltered for millions of years.
Can you actually explain how radioactive dating works, and what the margin of error is, what causes the error?
Note: Complaining that radioactive dating is insufficiently accurate is the perennial platform of the fundamentalists. It's false and unsubstantiated.
Didn't follow the link, did you? They are annually deposited, and easily disrupted. A large flood, even a local one, would disturb the layers. And they can be quite old, tens of millions of layers thick.
I take from this response you didn't even understand the problem it presents you.
Would it help you if I got it wrong? If they are consistent layers millions thick, then they were probably part of the original layers in rock before the flood, and not necessarily sedimentary. Never studied them, so I would not know.
Read Creation magazine, great science there.
Maybe now that you know about them, you'll read about them. Even though they pose a problem with your conception of past history. And yes, they do pose a problem. About the same related problem as having the Chinese miss documenting a great flood, but at the time of the flood they documented mundane life activities.
Communist China and their history? Biased don't you think?
What does the current political state of China have to do with their well known and very ancient history? Maybe that's something else you can look into researching.
It's an interesting diagram, one which palaeontologists carry in their wallet, otherwise there would not be much employment for them. It's like a general reference.
It can be used upside down as well, I believe.
Aside from everything, you're a generous person Aq
Communist regimes are renown for rewriting history, the last thing they want is anything resembling Christianity. That's been their worldwide effort and they seem to be successful.
You do realize that a lot of what we learned about China happened before they became communist, right? How far are you willing to carry the whole revisionist thing to preserve a biblical story? Did the Egyptians rewrite things too? India?
That is also a dishonest statement.
You just got through claiming the sedimentary layers are mixed up. You now have in graphic form the complete natural history of the Earth, taken from three sites in the Western US.
It's infallible. And the radiometric dating is not wildly inaccurate as you believe. Measurement is a fundamental field in science and it's highly advanced. The data you are sending when you post is subjected to all kinds of noise, which corrupts the signal, yet it never screws up, does it? The types of error detection and correction developed for telecom systems has an analogous application in radiometric dating. You simply never worked in testing, and you're assuming that its unreliable. Reliability, in the test and measurement world, is often equated with repeatability. In a course in geology you would learn how to calibrate and take measurements. Radioactive dating is highly reliable and accurate. The reliability is owed to the exponential decay of nuclear isotopes. By measuring the percent of decayed isotopes, geologists can determine the age of the material. When many samples taken produce repeatable answers, the age can be stated within a confidence interval. Your assumption is that geologists are dishonest. That's ludicrous. Creationists base much of their false ideology on the mistaken belief that scientists are dishonest and/or involved in a conspiracy. It's all fabricated, simply to shore up the sad fact that they can't handle how nice and uniform the fossil record really is.
You can run, but you can't hide. The fossil record is out there, telling the world what you wish weren't true.
I agree with the layering, just not the interpretation of them and the assumption that they are squillions of years old. I believe in the traditional view that the earth is only six thousand years old.
If someone payed me to go there, I would find as much evidence in one day, to dismiss the older earth theory.
Call it rosed glasses if you want.
No, you misunderstand. This establishes that the layers are uniform. That's a composite taken from 3 different canyon walls. They overlap exactly, and in composite they retell the natural history of the world from the beginning until the present. We reference the epochs and eras by name as a matter of convenience and convention.
This is not a map to fold up and put away. It's the whole answer to the puzzle of the origin and history of life, and of the progressive changes to surface features and habitats. Creationists simply can't handle the wealth of information it contains, and are bent on discrediting that information, the people who study it, and the methods they use.
But that's all just styrofoam. It's pseudoscience. They can't handle the real science so they attack it with fabricated claims and evidence, fallacious arguments, false inferences and conclusions -- in other words, they're liars.
It's the consistency of this information that allows geologists to correlate with other kind of strata that are exposed in the seemingly messed-up way you seem to think. Sites all over the world can be cross-correlated. The geologist I mentioned earlier, Sir Charles Lyell was brought up in a situation in which he traveled back and forth across two regions of Scotland. These were regions from different geologic eras. Apparently this influenced him and drove his curiosity about how and why such a thing could happen.
The point is, those layers were laid down in succession. And the fossils they contain are therefore referenced to the dating of the respective layers.
It's blatantly evident from the fossil record that life evolved from monocytes - some of whom also left fossils - and from then into primitive metazoan forms, leading to primitive body organization - from hydra to flatworms and to more advanced structures leading to the vertebrates - fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and finally the mammals and marsupials. This is how it's recorded.
But nowhere do we find any evidence of a global disaster that killed all species. There is one severe mass extinction and several smaller ones, and these are evident from the study of these layers. But the story they tell in no way correlates with the hypothesis you're introducing here.
This isn't even the main evidence you need to study the human era. You need to understand surface features and habitats, including those which have been in existence for longer than the era in which you believe a global flood occurred.
The key point I am making is that there was no mass extinction in the human era. There was a local extinction in Australia of many large marsupials, and you are probably aware of extinctions of animals like the mastodon, sabre-toothed tiger etc. But no global mass extinction.