Author Topic: How do we determine the age of Fossils?  (Read 1032 times)

Offline trdsf

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2018, 10:01:30 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Confirmed...Mousedroppings is a creationist chump, and he's beginning to repeat his material.

Time for purgatory?
Yeah, I'm leaning that way.  Now that Mousie is claiming that his bible is science except that it isn't, that's the fundamental contradiction, and pisses away his 200-some posts in one puff of logic.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Mr.Obvious

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2018, 10:19:42 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Confirmed...Mousedroppings is a creationist chump, and he's beginning to repeat his material.

Time for purgatory?

Oh I don't know.

I wouldn't, if I were admin.
He's only got one strike in my book, found in the horse he rode in on.

Now if he were to actually spam a whole lot new threads or interrupt other threads with his spiel, then yes.
But the amount of threads he makes are relatively low. They are higher than my count, for sure. But if we were to put someone in purgatory for making uninteresting a couple of uninteresting threads in a row, we'd have to place a lot more people there to stay consitent.

Randy Carson spammed thread after thread, for example. He interrupted other threads too, if I recall correctly. Trap contains himself, which is fine.
Purgatory gives  us the chance to ignore him. But you can already ignore his threads, if you want. I hardly respond because I know it's not worth it. My personal taste or lack of ambition or disinterest, however, should not get him thrown into purgatory.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to be here, protecting Trap. But I have to. Until he actually does something wrong, I believe he should be allowed to stay.

My two cents. For what they are worth.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 10:21:45 AM by Mr.Obvious »
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2018, 10:26:51 AM »
So, MT failed to hit the ball out of the park twice (though he delusionally thinks that he did), so I guess this will be the third strike.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now, after we found that Atheists accuse the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe as non scientific, and I showed my Atheist warriors that the science which they thought was evidence to disprove the Biblical version, was actually plagiarized from Genesis!
This is something no atheist likes to hear, and they will never take scientific discoveries in support of the Nebular theory as evidence that destroys their belief.
You have an interesting version of reality, because you still remain curiously silent regarding my rebuttals in the universal origins thread, or in the origins of life thread. That's usually indicative of someone who doesn't know the first thing of what they're talking about. It's like a car mechanic who can't change a tire — ya begin to suspect that the "car mechanic" isn't. The solar system cannot have formed the way you describe. Even the details that might have been plausible, didn't happen because otherwise the objects involved would be substantially different than they actually are. I even deny that the biblical writers would have described the Genesis scene the way they would have had they a science movie view of what occured.

But even if the Bible was right on the money, so what? See, in science, how you know something is more important than what you know. The Bible contains a description of what it claims happened to create the world as we know it, but there is no explanation that passes any scientific muster. You will find no Biblical passage that tells you the isotopic signatures of asteroids and why that indicates that they formed from a relatively few first-generation protoplanets being smashed apart, for instance. The Biblical passages are also hopelessly vague; was the Earth before land and sea formed a suspension of silt and water, or was it a homogenized chemical soup which later precipitated out the land, or what? Because the Bible doesn't tell you how its authors could know the things it claims, it's worthless as a science book.

Quote
Frankly, they get crazy when they find out that the current scientific description on the Origins of the Universe, was actually a description claimed by the 'Author" of the Bible about 4500 years ago.
Maybe the same way decent, sane people "go crazy" when some loon deficates on a sidewalk, but I don't see why that's a detriment on them.

Anyway, the Bible wasn't written 4500 years ago. Not even the church thinks that. The consensus of biblical schollars say that the first books of the bible were written 2600 years ago. When you don't know basic things about your own text, you've got a problem.

Quote
This is the one Thing that made me realize that the Bible has much more to say about the Existence of a Creator, than what atheists and scientists like us to believe.

I followed this investigation up with the initial agenda to dismiss the Biblical claim that Life is a mere 6YK in existence.
Given that we have found life in strata dated to 3.5 billion years ago, this is hard to swallow.

Quote
Well, when I looked at what scientists were teaching about dating ex life with C14/C12 RI tests, I learned that the Bible actually spoke about the effects of C14, and the over or under supply of it in the Atmosphere. I learned that the Biblical description of an atmosphere that was not yet in Equilibrium, but that was waterlogged and was instrumental in a Global flood, and that this atmosphere cleared after this flood to effectively allow refraction of light for the first time, led me to understand that the claim that the atmosphere was already in equilibrium millions of years ago was incorrect.
There's no evidence of a global flood. At all. Where are the global diluvial deposits that should be present if a global flood occured? Why do we still have completely anchored dendrochronologies through this period, indicating trees living and growing right through the flood, when any global flood would have caused them all to drown or be uprooted? (Yes, trees can drown. They use oxygen to burn the sugars made during the day.) Hell, we have a handful of trees that are still alive today that have weathered the supposed flood without even noticing.

Your description has the Global Flood is a worldwide climatic shift. To think that growing patterns worldwide would not be disrupted is completely untenable. All that water shielding C14 hanging as mist (supposing it could be mist, here) in the air would not just prevent C14 from forming. In case you hadn't noticed in your backpacking, mist is opaque. Light can't get through thick banks of mist. Yet it doesn't occur to you that the sunlight wouldn't be able to get through that mist either — your pre-flood earth would have been shrouded in darkness, yet apparently plants (which photosynthesize) grew through this supposed pre-flood period. I would think that the ancients would notice if it got truly light and saw the sun for the first time only after the flood.

Every means we have used to assess what happened 6-3k years ago shows us that there are no unusual climactic shifts on the scale of the Great Flood.

C14 not being in equilibrium doesn't prevent it from being incorporated into living organisms. This includes the tree rings we use in dendrochronology. Tree rings contain C14, and are an archive of what the concentration of C14 was like at that point in the past, as each ring is stable tissue that does not tear down and rebuild itself, like animal tissue does. We thus use dendrochronology (among other techniques) to calibrate the C14 curve, and therefore we need not make the assumption that C14 was in equilibrium at a certain level in order for it to work.

And when we do You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login we find that — nope, C14 experiences no sudden drops in C14 past 6-4000 years ago. In fact, by INTCAL13, an object dated to 40,000 years old by C14 gets a calendar dating of about 44,000 years old; it's actually older than C14 dating would predict because C14 was higher in the past.

This is symptomatic to people who do not understand science and do not wish to. You learned only enough of C14 dating to provide what seemed to you a plausible explanation of the flood, only if you investigated a bit deeper, you would find that this was not the case — what science hath given you, science hath taken away. The flood would have left evidence galore as a major climatic disruption and shift, and we find no evidence of it anywhere. The flood would have left worldwide and recent diluvial deposits, a specific kind of strata, and we don't find them. All we find are the usual mostly gradual strata building processes that can only realistically take millions of years to form. Your misty (?) radiation shield would have made younger material appear older, but in actuality it's the older material that appears younger, and would constitute a shield that blocks sunlight even more effectively than it does radiation.

No, the fact that the Bible left out the fact that the sun could not be seen through the mist shield indicates that it could not do the job to shield us from radiation. Fail.

Quote
Why, because scientists explains that the mor C14 radioactivity in your body, the faster you will age.
But it doesn't follow from that if that you will stop aging if you remove C14 completely from your body. Simple cause fallacy.

Quote
Wow, this then took another claim ridden by Atheists as proof of Biblical mythology, and it destroyed the atheist claim abruptly.
The description...(something the Bible claims and atheists calls mythology) Humans lived for a long time in this atmosphere before the flood, and just after it.
They did not age this fast!
Well, Well, Well...The Bible is correct again, and atheism is wrong again.
This is what is claimed. There is no evidence to support it. No human remains have ever exhibited signs that they had lived this long. Science does not have to explain what is not demonstrated.

Quote
Therefore,
Therefore nothing. The Bible gets basic facts wrong about how the Earth and the solar system formed, there is no evidence for any global flood that should have produced plenty of evidence had it actually happened, or any evidentiary sign that C14 is as eratic as you claim.

Quote
Now we will look at RI dating on fossils and rocks.

Lets see.
If we test a rock's age, what are we testing?
The radio isotope decay in the rock.
Can this scientific test be incorrect?
Yes, because they align with other dating methods, when they can be performed. Sedimentary rock is a poor candidate for radiological dating because it forms from weathered rocks, which means that their radiologic clocks have already started. At best, they will give you an age where the rock can be no older than a certain date, the age of the last clock restart. Igneous and metamorphic rocks are good candidates because solidification from magma and metamorphic reworking tend to start and reset radiologic clocks.

Now, here's a thing to remember about the geological column: the geological column was worked out by creationists. These were people who believed that the Bible was correct in that God created all the creatures that ever walked on earth. Only the geological column gave them monsters like Megalosaurus. It was these early creationist geologists and paleontologists who worked out the geological column with all of its index fossils. That's important: these early paleontologists didn't believe that life was evolving, yet they were able to use the presence or abscence of life forms to put the local strata into the correct order and therefore date the rocks.

Rock dating is a complicated procedure of which "perform a (single) test on this sample and it spits out a date" is a comically gross oversimplification. What you will get is a bunch of statements, "this thing can be no older than [blah] because [blah-blah-blah];" "this thing can be no younger than [blah] because [blah-blah-blah];" and "this thing has to be between [blah] and [blah-blah] because [blah-blah-blah]." What you get at the end is a succession of bounds for the age of an object that narrow down its exact age to some satisfactorily-restricted range.

When radiological dating was devised, it was used to test these ages that were already determined by a huge body of reasoning supported by evidence, and it was found that these radiological ages agreed with the dating already established.

Quote
I do not have any objection in the dating methods at all!
Except, apparently, the basic principles that those dating methods can help date material above, below, and embedded in them.

Quote
I agree with them, rocks are old.
The Earth is old!

But life?
C14 could not prove life existed longer ago than 6YK.

So what can we use?
Well, the fact that we find fossils buried in rock that are quite clearly millions of years old, which are in turn buried under other rock that clearly took millions of years to build up and form. Obvious conclusion.

I mean, in some cases, you can SEE the annual layers of some rocks.

Quote
Oh, I forgot, we have fossils caught up in strata  and these fossils can be dated with RI tests.
So, if we look at where a fossil is in the strata of a rock layer, we can say this animal lived a certain age ago.

To conclude,
We will date the fossil as well as the Rock with RI tests.
We will look at where the fossil is in the rock strata to determine its age.
Well, given that rocks have to form atop of other rocks (have you ever seen a rock layer form in midair or midwater?), the law of superposition is valid. Given that a fossil has to be deposited in the rock it forms in before it hardens, the creature for which the fossil came can be no younger than the rock its fossil was found. Even conservative estimates of the rate of deposition for these rocks easily put the figures in millions of years. Heck there are even some rocks that are made slowly by creatures, like coral, and crinoids (limestone), and coccolithophores (chalk).

Of course, lots of things can happen between when one rock layer forms and successive layers form, as well as deposition having a bit of variation in it, so ages determined by this are only approximate. It is important in stratigraphy to establish the sequence of events that form a region's geological column.

Quote
Great.
I will be back.
Oh wow... Can't wait...
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Hydra009

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2018, 10:44:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not have any objection in the dating methods at all!
I agree with them, rocks are old.
The Earth is old!

But life?
C14 could not prove life existed longer ago than 6YK.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2018, 05:35:29 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My brain has washboard abs and awesome biceps by now!  XD
I noticed your forehead...
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Offline Baruch

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2018, 07:12:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I noticed your forehead...

He is NG Star Trek Klingon?
שלום

Offline trdsf

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2018, 07:21:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I noticed your forehead...
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Offline Baruch

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2018, 07:29:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


His mom didn't enjoy giving birth to that kid!
שלום

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2018, 08:27:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

More  jowls than forehead.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2018, 02:51:47 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ah, good, you've just undermined your bible completely as any sort of authority.  What does the bible say about the Sea of Solomon?  The exact wording is ten cubits in diameter and thirty cubits in circumference.  It says NOTHING about inner and outer diameters, that's just later made-up stuff to try to get past the fact that this was clearly written not by a god, but by an innumerate nomad.  [/i].
The biblical description that the bowl has a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits suggest that in the construction of the basin, π was approximated with the integer value 3. This is consistent with the practice in Babylonian mathematics at the time (6th century BC), but it has given rise to debate within rabbinical Judaism from an early period due to the concern that the biblical text might here be inaccurate.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
so you think the Sea of Solomon had no inner and outer diameter?
Quote from: wiki
Rabbi Nehemiah in the 2nd century argued that the text is not claiming that π equals 3, but that instead the Hebrews measured the diameter from the outside edge of the rim of the bowl, while the circumference was measured from under the rim, since it cannot be measured with a cord along the outside edge of the rim. After accounting for the width of the brim--"about an hand breadth"--this results in a ratio closer to the true value of π. Taking a cubit to be about 18 inches and a hand breadth to be about 4 inches, the ratio of the described dimensions of the bowl differs from π by less than 1%.
Mmmmm... wrong again, do you want to phone a friend?
Do you see that this attack against the Sea at the Temple of Solomon is actually not a contradiction at all.
It is again just an atheist Straw-man argument!
Bible Gotcha again!

Quote from: trdsf
So who do you worship, your god or Isaac Newton?
Another Straw-man argument.
Look closely, I said that Isaac Newton already answered your Straw-man argument, now you built another straw-man and think you will get away with your incorrect claim in destroying the second Straw-man, thereby destroying the second, the first and the incorrect contradiction.
You are really funny!

Quote from: trdsf
And now I'm going to sit back and be amused while you desperately try to claim that interpretation is literalism and black is white and up is down.
The bible didn't say bats were mammals (they are) and I never said it did, you lying hypocrite.  The bible said BIRDS.
Silly...the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, (oh and some Aramaic)
the word Bird is English.
You should not get confused with chronology.
Dead Sea Scrolls=Hebrew=180 BC.
New Testament=Greek= 230 Ad
King James=English=1611 Ad
1800 years different!

Please don't stop posting your accusations against the Bible,
You are helping my case a lot with your continuous attempt to derail the topic at hand with real non-cognitive straw-men concoctions.
Without you this forum will be boring!
Quote from: trdsf
*ahem* And you're the one demanding the bible is scientifically accurate, not us.
No, you got it all wrong and upside down.
You (Atheists) made claims that the Bible is non compatible with science and this is your evidence that the Author of the Bible should never be considered as the Creator of the Universe.
I watched this website for more than 2 years before registering, and eventually decided to just join and to test you to see if your arguments can withstand my simple observations. Well what I found is that all your reasons for denial on the Biblical scriptures, is not valid.
All your straw-man arguments is very flimsy, and I will be able to produce 10 times better arguments than what you think is solid evidence.

Quote from: trdsf
And now you admit it isn't?  What the fuck have you been wasting all our time for, then?  You just completely threw out EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID.
And here we see the true spirit of atheism.
Lose, then swear, denial, straw-man, and on and on and on it goes.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 02:57:00 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2018, 03:16:08 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I'm leaning that way.  Now that Mousie is claiming that his bible is science except that it isn't, that's the fundamental contradiction, and pisses away his 200-some posts in one puff of logic.
And Atheists say they are openminded
informed and will investigate all the evidence at hand.
able to defend their position on the Bible.
Scientific intelligent.

I found 'half of all atheists' are close minded compare them to a clay ox.
Uninformed about Biblical apologetics, and total hatred, denial, even terminal in reading any Creationist publications.
They are quick to atack the Bible with silly accusations, but I found their reasons verry flimsy.
They believe they can defend their positin against the Bible, but only with self hypnosis.
And they might think they have scientific knowledge, but they unconsciously are sellective in what they want to hear.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2018, 03:20:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh I don't know.

I wouldn't, if I were admin.
He's only got one strike in my book, found in the horse he rode in on.

...

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I want to be here, protecting Trap. But I have to. Until he actually does something wrong, I believe he should be allowed to stay.

My two cents. For what they are worth.
Please note.
This is the next step in remaining in denial on what my posts showed.
Threat the Christian.
Or even better, block him from this site.

I love the results I am learning from Atheists when they know they do not have any answers.
LOL
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Offline Mr.Obvious

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2018, 03:52:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please note.
This is the next step in remaining in denial on what my posts showed.
Threat the Christian.
Or even better, block him from this site.

I love the results I am learning from Atheists when they know they do not have any answers.
LOL

You do realize I'm the one who opts you should be allowed to stay, right?
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2018, 04:30:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You do realize I'm the one who opts you should be allowed to stay, right?
I do indeed,
Do you realize that I expect you to be a honorable moderator that realizes that if he disallows a Christian to post his points of view, it is a display of just how bias
one can be against any criticism.
Never did I swear at anyone on this forum.
Never did I preach or forced my religion down on anyone.
All I did on your website is the following.

1. I saw how atheists demanded to have the total knowledge that there is no deity and thereby they degraded the Bible with silly and unfounded accusations with no facts at all.
2. I said very clearly that all I want to achieve is to show the atheists who does this errors, the simple yet fundamental answers to these so called contradictions with science as they supposed it should be, and not what the facts reflect.
3. I was happily accepting the atheist treatment of swearing, calling or personal names, accusations of ignorance, and I was even threatened to be shot for my points of view. etc.
Did I ever complain, no!
Why, because I accept the right of an atheist to express their point of view.
Guess what, I will even defend the atheists' view point to say what they believe in.

Now, lets' us see what your honor is all about.
You noticed that I was threatened to be shot. What did you say?
Nothing.
Now let us conclude on the situation.
Are you going to ban me to express my point of view of someone who simply entered this forum, where atheists were having a feast against the Bible and Christians where these atheists were living in a bubble, telling each other how clever they all are, and how intelligent Atheists are, and how stupid Christians are; and I placed my info on the table?

I can not prescribe any actions you think you should do, all I can do is to show all these posts to Christians in future, and show them how atheists fear a Christian once confronted with evidence proving the total ignorance of your brothers in the Atheist festival.

I am totally satisfied, and comfortable on any choice you make.
Banning me will be evidence of victory to the Bible.
Keeping me will be a continuation of the painful experience your atheist friends endured over the past few weeks.

Nice!
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Re: How do we determine the age of Fossils?
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2018, 04:57:13 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I suggest you do some research on the Sumerian king list and learn that there are no evidence at all for the Kingship dating before 2500BC.
this is the same as the Egyptian chronology which was inflated by Manetho to impress the Greeks in 300BC.

Did you actually think this quote about the Sumerians who was frightened when YHWH created the universe is a serious scholarly document?
Well, believe it or not, the Sumerian tablets on creation is one that can not be reconciled with science at all.
I will debate you anytime on these documents.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk