Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

#281 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:22 PM

OK... I know I'm coming into this late but......

 

 

Wibble: Is anyone else having difficulty with this, or is it just Mike and BK ?

 

Blitzking stated that just one dino bone with no measureable C14 would prove Genesis false. Instead of the contaminated bones that the YEC group had dated (and I have given very sound, referenced reasons for why those dates should not be regarded as valid, reasons that neither of you have addressed), I have pointed out where Pleistocene mammal bones have produced infinite dates, that is no measureable C14, which Blitz is in denial about even though it came from his source. There are also infinite dates in the Higham et al paper I linked.

Mike nowhere have I said that all the 360 samples in Blitz' link were infinite dates, please read what I write more carefully. All I had to show, in the light of Blitz' assertion, was just one infinite date

 

Yes but you heavily implied no measurable C14 you said; "In the introduction they mention some dates for Pleistocene mammal material:...You won’t know this but where the date is prefixed by “>” as in “greater than” that means the sample is dated at infinite age i.e no measureable C14. So thanks for that."

 

"So thanks for that" as though you had proven them infinite for the Pleistocence, and then you said this also; "The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false"

 

So if you weren't saying the Pleistocene specimens were all infinite, then I must say the language you used certainly was strongly implying that you wanted to argue zero C14. 

 

From my own perspective I don't agree that one example of no C14 would prove anything much because even if there is no C14 at all that doesn't mean a specimen is millions of years, it could still be thousands. While it may be conceivable that somehow C14 could be somehow vanquished sooner through accelerated elements for whatever obscure reason, to believe it could last many millions of years seems the impossible part to me.

Specifically, what the ">" means as used in the original paper is that they can't tell if the sample is 53,000 years old or 53,000,000 years old.  This is that the detectible 14C is below the limits of the equipment used.

 

The lab can not legitimately apply an "infinite" age to the sample.  All they can say is that it is older than they can tell using the technology they have.

 

This is exactly what Blitz claimed would be the end-game for creationism .... a sample with no detectable 14C.

 

You are correct a sample with no detectable 14C would not prove millions of years.  Carbon dating is totally inappropriate for that.  There are multiple other dating methods that demonstrate not only millions, but BILLIONS of years as the age of the Earth.

 

A process that would "vanquish" 14C without also removing 12C doesn't exist.  Nor is it "conceivable."  Not without destruction of the sample.

 

 

 

Don't forget our position as creationists, is not that we hold any dating method as brilliantly reliable, so when I say, "this could mean the flood was older, say 12,000 years" or along those lines, just as easily it could mean that it is the dating methods that are off base and the flood was 5,000 years ago, so the dating method is off by that much rather than the estimate of the flood being off. :gotcha:

We can hardly forget the position of creationists.  Creationists hold that any evidence contradicting their (literal) view of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This is clearly documented in the Statement of Faith published by multiple Creationist ministries and scientific organizations.  It is also consistent with the behavior of most creationists and arguments put forward by them.

 

For that reason, they hold all radiometric dating methods are UNreliable.  They account for 14C readings over 6000 years with a claim that there was no atmospheric 14C before the flood; that the atmosphere was created with no 14C; or accelerated decay. 



#282 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 04:55 PM

BK, what I get from this personally, is that the dates are a bunch of mish-mashed, disparate codswallop anyway. Even for the young ages they all seem to differ, I think it is far stronger evidence of youth that the soft tissues exist, we know that collagen, cartilage and DNA have all been measured, their decays rates precisely extrapolated.

Seriously?

 

Biological decay rates are subject to at least a half-dozen external factors.  You can't tell from the state of biological decay if a sample died 5 months or 5,000 years ago.

Go ahead and show where they have been "precisely extrapolated."  Show the studies where biological decay has been used to establish age.

 

On the other hand, more than a century of testing has shown nothing (short of a nuclear chain reaction) that will significantly impact nuclear decay rates.  They have been measured and "their decay rates precisely extrapolated."  We can verify their stability back thru time by spectral analysis of decay rates in the light of distant stars.  For example, the spectra of Sn1987a shows a decay rate for 56Co consistent with what is observed on Earth today.

 

Yet you embrace the more volatile, least precise ways of age determination over one that is based on one of the most stable processes in the universe.

 

.... and that, I suppose, is the more "logical" approach.



#283 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:15 PM

?
Another matter that has to be sorted out is why we would give higher credence to radiometric dating methods (given for example how hard it is to verify that a stone is 100 million years old or not) over knowledge of how decay of organic structures work. What reason would we have to do that?

Because the rate of biological decay is subject to multiple external factors including:  temperature, humidity, pH.  Nuclear decay rates do not vary significantly.  Further, they can be verified back in time by spectral analysis of light from distant stars.

 

What reason would we have to give higher credence to the less stable process over the more stable one as a means to establish dates?



#284 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 05:26 PM

It isn't only the t-Rex tissue but Armitage's case of the soft tissue in a dino horn, even Piasan said his work was excellent when he seemed to acknowledge how meticulous Armitage was in ruling out contamination and other factors. But there are also less known, less popular cases. 

To clarify:

 

My comment had nothing to do with Armitage's work on the dino horn.  It was a statement based on evidence entered in his legal case that his performance reviews indicated he did excellent work.



#285 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 September 2017 - 06:27 PM

... without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly..

Actually, we have a "time machine" of sorts.  When we look at distant stars, we see what was happening at the time and place the light left that object.  Spectral analysis can be used to determine the decay rates of isotopes in the light signature of supernova events.

 

There is also the fact that nuclear decay rates are extremely stable over virtually all conditions.

 

But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables,

Yes, and we know they vary by many orders of magnitude as the result of a wide range of external conditions.

 

 

and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME..

Only if you accept a process subject to huge variations in rate over one that is highly stable.

 

 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!
Why would your test be restricted to dinosaurs?  Why wouldn't a lack of measurable 14C in any biological remains do?  Wibble has already provided a number of examples.
 
You've complained about radiometric dating being "shoved down the throat of creationists."  OK .... forget radiometric dating.  We can consider ALL such dates invalid.  You still have a huge problem and all I need do is walk out in my yard and look at the night sky.  We shouldn't even be able to see most of the Milky Way.  Andromeda, the most distant object visible without a telescope, is 2.4 million light years from Earth .... some 400x the distance we should be able to see in a Biblical universe.  Yet, I can easily see both with my unaided eye.... no high tech or precise handling necessary.
 
BTW, have you noticed, neither radiometric dating (physics) nor light travel times (astronomy) have anything to do with biological evolution.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users