U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2011, 04:04 PM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,137,208 times
Reputation: 2594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
I'm curious why you believe it.
Because I am a geologist who has done this work for 24 years. Also, you might want to read post #29.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2011, 04:06 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,871,180 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Because I am a geologist who has done this work for 24 years. Also, you might want to read post #29.
Thanks...hadn't seen post 29.



I have glanced through it. Honestly....as you have probably surmised, it makes reference to a lot of things that I'm not immediately familiar with, but it sounds like it estimates the age of the rock layers to certain periods of time. From what I can understand of it, there is no actual measurement of it, but just guestimates based on the rock formations. Am I wrong? I'm honestly trying to understand this. Please educate me.

Last edited by Calvinist; 08-25-2011 at 04:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 04:56 PM
 
2,031 posts, read 1,213,785 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Thanks...hadn't seen post 29.

I have glanced through it. Honestly....as you have probably surmised, it makes reference to a lot of things that I'm not immediately familiar with, but it sounds like it estimates the age of the rock layers to certain periods of time. From what I can understand of it, there is no actual measurement of it, but just guestimates based on the rock formations. Am I wrong? I'm honestly trying to understand this. Please educate me.
I'm no geologist, but it took me less than two minutes to open the study and find multiple references to direct dating -- no guesses, but direct isotopic dating. It's rather easy, since there's an entire section of the study listed in the table of contents titled Part C: Geological Age of Jurumaia and Tiaojishan Formation.

The cited references are then fully listed at the end of the document, so interested readers can look up those particular studies and examine the data and methodology.

Undoubtedly orogenicman can explain it in great detail if he so chooses, and I'd probably learn a lot. My point is, even a layman like me who has nothing more than an amateur's interest in radioactivity (and no formal education in it since 11th-grade chemistry 25 years ago) can clearly see that this study uses quantifiable scientific data, not "guestimates", in its dating of this fossil. Any high school graduate with an open mind who is willing to so much as peruse the paper should be able to as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 05:42 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,871,180 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
I'm no geologist, but it took me less than two minutes to open the study and find multiple references to direct dating -- no guesses, but direct isotopic dating. It's rather easy, since there's an entire section of the study listed in the table of contents titled Part C: Geological Age of Jurumaia and Tiaojishan Formation.

The cited references are then fully listed at the end of the document, so interested readers can look up those particular studies and examine the data and methodology.

Undoubtedly orogenicman can explain it in great detail if he so chooses, and I'd probably learn a lot. My point is, even a layman like me who has nothing more than an amateur's interest in radioactivity (and no formal education in it since 11th-grade chemistry 25 years ago) can clearly see that this study uses quantifiable scientific data, not "guestimates", in its dating of this fossil. Any high school graduate with an open mind who is willing to so much as peruse the paper should be able to as well.
Interesting...since carbon dating is impossible to date back 160 million years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 05:43 PM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,137,208 times
Reputation: 2594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Thanks...hadn't seen post 29.



I have glanced through it. Honestly....as you have probably surmised, it makes reference to a lot of things that I'm not immediately familiar with, but it sounds like it estimates the age of the rock layers to certain periods of time. From what I can understand of it, there is no actual measurement of it, but just guestimates based on the rock formations. Am I wrong? I'm honestly trying to understand this. Please educate me.
Do you know why that is? Because we've been working on the geologic time scale for nearly 200 years. So when someone finds a fossil in a particular KNOWN formation, we already know what relative age it is. But if you had read the paper carefully, you would have noted that they also conducted radiometric dating of the formation the fossil was found in to get a firmer fix on its age. And from that they determined that it was 160 million year old.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 05:45 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 2,871,180 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Do you know why that is? Because we've been working on the geologic time scale for nearly 200 years. So when someone finds a fossil in a particular KNOWN formation, we already know what relative age it is. But if you had read the paper carefully, you would have noted that they also conducted radiometric dating of the formation the fossil was found in to get a firmer fix on its age. And from that they determined that it was 160 million year old.
That's my point. What do you base your geological aging on?

If the foundation is incorrect, so are the things built on that foundation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 05:55 PM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,137,208 times
Reputation: 2594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Interesting...since carbon dating is impossible to date back 160 million years.
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, they didn't use the radiocarbon method. That would be stupid. Here is what they did:

The Tiaojishan Formation was dated to be 165-164 Ma by SHRIMP U-Pb method on zircons in the Qiaomailiang Locality in the neighboring Ningcheng area of the Inner Mongolia Region (fig. 2 in Liu et al. 2006; also 61-Liu and Liu 2005). The Lanqi Formation in the adjacent Beipiao area of Liaoning is generally considered to be a stratigraphic equivalent of the Tiaojishan Fm. The lower part of Lanqi Formation in the Beipiao area near Jianchang County is recently dated to range to 160.70.4ma to158.70.6ma by high-precision Ar/Ar geochronological method on sanidines and plagioclases.

An earlier estimate postulated the geological age of the Tiaojishan Formation to be from 161ma to 151ma (62-Xu et al. 2003, cited by 63-Hu et al. 2009). Another geological study estimated that the top part of Tiaojishan be range from 162ma to 154ma (64-Zhang et al. 2008). A recent study on a feathered troodontid dinosaur from the Tiaojishan Fm. (Hu et al.2009) adopted the estimate from K. Xu et al. (2003) (62) for the Tiaojishan Formation. The Hu et al. (2009) (63) tudy assigned the troodontid dinosaur from Tiaojishan in Daxigou site to be ~155 ma (about the median age from the range of 161 ma to 151ma, according to Xu et al. 2003[62]).

On the basis more recent work, especially the direct dating on the Tiaojishan Fm (15-Liu et al. 2006) and by the more precise geochronological method to date the Lanqi Formation (Tiaojishan-equivalent) in adjacent regions (16-Chang et al. 2009), we believe that 160 ma for the fossiliferous horizon of Daxigou site is a better estimate. By a common used geological timescale by Gradstein et al. (2004) (65), this fossil locality should be placed in the lowest part of the Late Jurassic.

If you don't understand what any of this means, then that is why I tell you to take a class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
7,646 posts, read 5,989,733 times
Reputation: 3104
Everyone familiar with the RATE Group? Abandoning Geology, Geochemistry, and Physics and are now searching for miracles.

"RATE" Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

The following material may be freely copied and distributed as long as the author is properly acknowledged and the material is not altered, edited or sold.

For decades, young-Earth creationists (YECs) have vainly searched the geology and geochemistry literature to find ways of discrediting radiometric dating and protecting their antiquated biblical interpretations. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym), for example, has been at the forefront in misquoting and misrepresenting radiometric dating results from the geology and geochemistry literature (e.g., Woodmorappe, 1979, 1999). Woodmorappe's shotgun attacks against radiometric dating even include the ridiculous accusation that concordant radiometric dates may be nothing more than products of "chance"; that is, random numbers (Woodmorappe, 1999, Figure 20, p. 51; p. 52, 87-92). Woodmorappe (1999, p. 85) even endorses YEC Robert Witter's outrageous charge that geochronologists could obtain just as good radiometric results by throwing darts at a concordia diagram. I often refer to this groundless attack as "Woodmorappe's Crapshoot".

A small group of YECs with legitimate Ph.D.s (including D. Russell Humphreys and John R. Baumgardner) have formed the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) committee to attack the validity of radiometric dating. Rather than embracing the embarrassing distortions and nonsensical accusations of Woodmorappe or John and Henry Morris, Humphreys and Baumgardner have finally realized that geology and geochemistry are not going to give them the answers that they want. In an Answers in Genesis (AiG) article Carl Wieland had this to say:

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for ICR), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for the definitive answer to the radiometric-dating puzzle.

Others had tried ­and for some, the search went on for a while in the early RATE days ­to find the answer in geological processes. But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that there were too many independent lines of evidence (the variety of elements used in "standard" radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos, fission track dating and more) that indicated that huge amounts of radioactive decay had actually taken place. It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be a single, unifying answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes.

In other words, after decades of YEC failures to undermine radiometric dating with geology and geochemistry, these YEC leaders now recognize that enormous amounts of radioactive decay have occurred. They are now relying on nuclear physics, e.g., Chaffin, 2003 (Adobe Acrobat file) and probably an ample supply of groundless miracles to speed up the decay rates without frying Adam or Noah. Humphreys et al. (2003) (Adobe Acrobat file), although full of errors and bad assumptions, also makes the following candid admission (p. 3), which is a veiled attack on Woodmorappe's "crapshoot" and similar YEC schemes that involve bogus accusations against radiometric dating methods and equipment:

Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27 and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [Humphreys, 2000, p. 335-337]. WE EMPHASIZE THIS POINT BECAUSE MANY CREATIONISTS HAVE ASSUMED THAT "OLD" RADIOISOTOPIC AGES ARE MERELY AN ARTIFACT OF ANALYSIS, NOT REALLY INDICATING THE OCCURRENCE OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF NUCLEAR DECAY. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth ­ at today's rates ­ of nuclear decay occurred. [my emphasis]

CONCLUSIONS

Over the years, YECs have invoked a large array of imaginative and fruitless excuses to defame radiometric dating. These attacks include: magma mixing, Woodmorappe's crapshoot, excess argon, neutron fluxes, neutrinos, and just plain creationist magic. Humphreys, Baumgardner, and other YECs in the ICR-AiG alliance have finally realized that they can't use geology and geochemistry to undermine radiometric dating. They are now relying on physics and probably a liberal dose of untenable miracles to save their dogma. YECs must realize that they're rapidly running out of "scientific excuses" for confusing and deluding the public about the true nature of radiometric dating.

REFERENCES

Chaffin, E.F., 2003, "Accelerated Decay: Theoretical Models," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Chaffin, 2003

Humphreys, D.R., 2000, "Accelerated nuclear decay: a viable hypothesis?" in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, editors, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society, San Diego, CA, p. 333-379.

Humphreys, D.R.; S.A. Austin; J.R. Baumgardner and A.A. Snelling, 2003, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay", Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. Ivey (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. Humphreys et al. (2003).

Woodmorappe, J., 1979, "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised", Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 16, September, p. 102f.

Woodmorappe, J., 1999, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,440 posts, read 2,165,924 times
Reputation: 2559
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Are you a creationbot, or what? Or just a plain idiot?

Field trip. Well?

Hey! Wait a microsecond here ... I am a "creationist", BUT I believe the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe at least 15 Billion Earth years old.

Please don't place us all in the same classification.

There are methods other than "Carbon Dating" to place the age of an object.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-26-2011, 06:56 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 1,137,208 times
Reputation: 2594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Hey! Wait a microsecond here ... I am a "creationist", BUT I believe the Earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe at least 15 Billion Earth years old.

Please don't place us all in the same classification.

There are methods other than "Carbon Dating" to place the age of an object.
That was directed specifically at Calvin and relative to him repeatedly ignoring what was posted. Also, why are you telling me about dating methods? Oh, one last thing, whether you are an OEC or a YEC makes no difference to me. "God did it" still doesn't explain anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top