Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Astrophile]

From what I read, dating is often done by means of the soil surrounding the fossil, not the bone itself. While interesting, that is not the only issue I have with categorizing the bones. If that is not the case, you may kindly offer information about this. thank you.

I think that you may be confusing radiocarbon dating (carbon-14 dating), which is used for measuring the age of geologically recent organic material, such as wood and charcoal, with other methods of radiometric dating, e.g. U-Pb, K-Ar and Ar-40/Ar-39, Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd, which are used for measuring the ages of igneous rocks and extra-terrestrial material.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, so the limiting age of radiocarbon dating is about 50,000 years (about nine half-lives), corresponding to the Holocene and the latest Pleistocene. This method is useful in archaeology and in dating the most recent glacial stage and the present interglacial. I know little about archaeology, soil science and radiocarbon dating, so I do not know whether your objections to the method are valid.

Radiocarbon dating cannot cannot be used for dating older rocks or fossils, because they are so old that all the carbon-14 that they contained has decayed. Other radiometric methods (U-Pb, K-Ar, etc.) are used for measuring the ages of igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds), but they cannot be used to date sedimentary rocks and fossils directly. Instead the ages of sedimentary rocks and the fossils that they contain are interpolated between the radiometric ages of volcanic strata above and below the sedimentary strata, not the sedimentary strata (not soil) surrounding the fossils. By the way, most fossils are of marine invertebrates, which have shells rather than bones.

If you can explain how fossils can be incorporated in sedimentary rocks after these rocks have been covered by datable volcanic strata, your objections to this method of dating fossils may be valid. Otherwise, not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But fossils do both. Can you point to some data that suggests the dating is unreliable enough to warrant disbelief? Or problems with definitions?
Out of the 16 main dating methods (Carbon-14, Radiometric, Absolute, Radiocarbon, Seriation, Archaeomagnetic, Relative, Fission, K-Ar, Uranium, Argon, Electron spin, Paleomagnetism, Uranium lead, and a few others) what are your main issues with relative and absolute, the 2 main types of groups?

No. It is never done that way. Nor is there any soil around any fossils. Fossils are not dated by the sediments around them either. If one could date the individual particles that make up sediments they would be dated to the igneous event that originally made them. That would not tell us how old the fossils were.

You need to understand the two different forms of geological dating. The law of superposition first formed by the Christian scientist Nicolas Steno observed that older sedimentary rock had to be older than the overlying beds. If you want to claim otherwise the burden of proof is upon you. By the way, it can happen. Rarely we see an older bed on top of a younger one. But the events and the process leaves evidence and. We can literally see how it happened. You don't get to just say "soil can shift". That is not a refutation. You would have to tell us how it shifted and the evidence for it.

If you want to learn how an older bed can get on top of a younger one I can explain that, but you need to earn that explanation.


Back to Steno. You might want to read this:

Law of superposition - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In a nut shell it is very hard to get an older bed over a younger one. And when that happens there will be evidence. Think about a collection of sheets and blankets laying flat on a bed. If you laid them down one at a time the first sheet or blanket that you laid down will be on the bottom.

Next, sedimentary layers often have a particular set of fossils in them. In fact all around the world we see specific fossils appearing at one time and disappearing at another. In fact some can be easily identified for when they first appeared, when they died out, and they are also found in many places around the world. These are called Index Fossils. That is a way that evolution can be tested. An index fossil , found much earlier than it should exist could refute evolution.

We can date sedimentary layers by the assemblage of fossils that are found within them. But that is only a relative date. Are you with me so far? Any questions?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that you may be confusing radiocarbon dating (carbon-14 dating), which is used for measuring the age of geologically recent organic material, such as wood and charcoal, with other methods of radiometric dating, e.g. U-Pb, K-Ar and Ar-40/Ar-39, Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd, which are used for measuring the ages of igneous rocks and extra-terrestrial material.

The half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years, so the limiting age of radiocarbon dating is about 50,000 years (about nine half-lives), corresponding to the Holocene and the latest Pleistocene. This method is useful in archaeology and in dating the most recent glacial stage and the present interglacial. I know little about archaeology, soil science and radiocarbon dating, so I do not know whether your objections to the method are valid.

Radiocarbon dating cannot cannot be used for dating older rocks or fossils, because they are so old that all the carbon-14 that they contained has decayed. Other radiometric methods (U-Pb, K-Ar, etc.) are used for measuring the ages of igneous rocks (including volcanic ash beds), but they cannot be used to date sedimentary rocks and fossils directly. Instead the ages of sedimentary rocks and the fossils that they contain are interpolated between the radiometric ages of volcanic strata above and below the sedimentary strata, not the sedimentary strata (not soil) surrounding the fossils. By the way, most fossils are of marine invertebrates, which have shells rather than bones.

If you can explain how fossils can be incorporated in sedimentary rocks after these rocks have been covered by datable volcanic strata, your objections to this method of dating fossils may be valid. Otherwise, not.

I am saying that soil or the surrounding areas of fossils can leach into the bones. And soil shifts, can drift or move due to circumstances such as rain, tornadoes, avalanche, flooding and things like that from other parts and so cannot really be the ultimate test for dating of a fossil. That is not to say, however, that I think each biblical day of creation was a 24 hour period. Each day (which is a term in that sense for a period of time with a beginning and an end) could have taken thousands or hundreds of thousands + years. Going back to the dating, as I understand it now, the dating centers on the soil or perhaps the substances leaked into the fossil.
In reference to fossils on or within soil, as I understand it, there are layers of soil as we can see from things like canyons, and deep cuts within rocky ledges, etc. I am getting older, but the older I get the less time I know I can figure I have on this earth now, presumably anyway. Nevertheless there are some things more interesting to me now than when I was younger. That includes figuring how soil gets to be where it is.
I'd have to really examine the way archaeologists perhaps(?) date the artifacts, including pottery and bones, but right now my question is about the soil and I am not sure, but I think the soil is how experts figure the date of an artifact is.
Thanks for your answer, btw.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need a specialist in nuclear physics to handle testing of radiometric dating. So unless paleontologists have past training and experience in handling radioactive isotopes and can afford the machines that calculate the age of objects, paleontologists are more likely to send their evidence to the labs for testing.

And when it come to dating ancient rocks that that are billions of years old, they would use uranium isotope (more accurate than radioactive argon isotope) for reliable dating. Do you seriously think paleontologists can get their hands on uranium?

More dangerous radioactive materials are monitored by authorities and governments.

I think the only person who lack education in how science work, is you.

ok, sorry about any misunderstanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am saying that soil or the surrounding areas of fossils can leach into the bones. And soil shifts, can drift or move due to circumstances such as rain, tornadoes, avalanche, flooding and things like that from other parts and so cannot really be the ultimate test for dating of a fossil. That is not to say, however, that I think each biblical day of creation was a 24 hour period. Each day (which is a term in that sense for a period of time with a beginning and an end) could have taken thousands or hundreds of thousands + years. Going back to the dating, as I understand it now, the dating centers on the soil or perhaps the substances leaked into the fossil.
In reference to fossils on or within soil, as I understand it, there are layers of soil as we can see from things like canyons, and deep cuts within rocky ledges, etc. I am getting older, but the older I get the less time I know I can figure I have on this earth now, presumably anyway. Nevertheless there are some things more interesting to me now than when I was younger. That includes figuring how soil gets to be where it is.
I'd have to really examine the way archaeologists perhaps(?) date the artifacts, including pottery and bones, but right now my question is about the soil and I am not sure, but I think the soil is how experts figure the date of an artifact is.
Thanks for your answer, btw.

More nonsense that does not make a lick of difference. The fossils are never dated that way. Once again, fossils are dated by igneous deposits above and below them They are not susceptible to "leaching".

You are not listening to any explanations that are given to you.

 

[gnostic]

I am saying that soil or the surrounding areas of fossils can leach into the bones. And soil shifts, can drift or move due to circumstances such as rain, tornadoes, avalanche, flooding and things like that from other parts and so cannot really be the ultimate test for dating of a fossil. That is not to say, however, that I think each biblical day of creation was a 24 hour period. Each day (which is a term in that sense for a period of time with a beginning and an end) could have taken thousands or hundreds of thousands + years. Going back to the dating, as I understand it now, the dating centers on the soil or perhaps the substances leaked into the fossil.

Clearly that you don’t understand the difference between soil and sedimentary rocks.

It is the minerals within the soil that with the right temperature and pressure that can turn these minerals into rocks.

Soil are made of 45% minerals and only 5% of organic matters, the rest are just 50% pores in the soil, in which can be filled with either gases or water. It is the sediments of these minerals that could eventually turn the sediments into rocks.

It isn’t the soil, but the minerals that chemically turn bones, shells or hard tissues of plants, into fossils. This chemical changes are called permineralization, which are the first stage of fossilization.

Permineralization occurred when water carry these minerals into the cavities of bones or shells, permeating them with these minerals. Over time, minerals would cause bones or shells to crystallize into similar substance as the minerals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Clearly that you don’t understand the difference between soil and sedimentary rocks.

It is the minerals within the soil that with the right temperature and pressure that can turn these minerals into rocks.

Soil are made of 45% minerals and only 5% of organic matters, the rest are just 50% pores in the soil, in which can be filled with either gases or water. It is the sediments of these minerals that could eventually turn the sediments into rocks.

It isn’t the soil, but the minerals that chemically turn bones, shells or hard tissues of plants, into fossils. This chemical changes are called permineralization, which are the first stage of fossilization.

Permineralization occurred when water carry these minerals into the cavities of bones or shells, permeating them with these minerals. Over time, minerals would cause bones or shells to crystallize into similar substance as the minerals.

Ok whatever.. however...

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok whatever.. however...

It is no longer relevant to me because of the attachment to species and clades some put on these things. Plus I no longer believe that humans living 20,000 years ago or so made pottery. Really no matter how scientists may size it up, I have come to believe the basic tenets or strongholds of their beliefs can be wrong. It can be that I will examine stringently the basics of dating and I have looked at it briefly, leading me to believe the initial presumption of dates can be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is no longer relevant to me because of the attachment to species and clades some put on these things. Plus I no longer believe that humans living 20,000 years ago or so made pottery. Really no matter how scientists may size it up, I have come to believe the basic tenets or strongholds of their beliefs can be wrong. It can be that I will examine stringently the basics of dating and I have looked at it briefly, leading me to believe the initial presumption of dates can be wrong.

What valid reason do you have for rejecting the work of experts in the field? If you believe the Old Testament and its timeline that only means that you believe that your own God is a liar. If there really is a God do you think that you keeping yourself ignorant on purpose will float as a valid excuse for you calling him a liar?

 

[John53]

Clearly that you don’t understand the difference between soil and sedimentary rocks.

It is the minerals within the soil that with the right temperature and pressure that can turn these minerals into rocks.

Soil are made of 45% minerals and only 5% of organic matters, the rest are just 50% pores in the soil, in which can be filled with either gases or water. It is the sediments of these minerals that could eventually turn the sediments into rocks.

It isn’t the soil, but the minerals that chemically turn bones, shells or hard tissues of plants, into fossils. This chemical changes are called permineralization, which are the first stage of fossilization.

Permineralization occurred when water carry these minerals into the cavities of bones or shells, permeating them with these minerals. Over time, minerals would cause bones or shells to crystallize into similar substance as the minerals.

Thank you. Great easy to understand explanation. Wish I could give an informative frubal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ok whatever.. however...

So it is really the soil that's being dated, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Clearly that you don’t understand the difference between soil and sedimentary rocks.

It is the minerals within the soil that with the right temperature and pressure that can turn these minerals into rocks.

Soil are made of 45% minerals and only 5% of organic matters, the rest are just 50% pores in the soil, in which can be filled with either gases or water. It is the sediments of these minerals that could eventually turn the sediments into rocks.

It isn’t the soil, but the minerals that chemically turn bones, shells or hard tissues of plants, into fossils. This chemical changes are called permineralization, which are the first stage of fossilization.

Permineralization occurred when water carry these minerals into the cavities of bones or shells, permeating them with these minerals. Over time, minerals would cause bones or shells to crystallize into similar substance as the minerals.

So then it's not the bone that's being dated, right? but the substances from without the bone that entered the bone as it deteriorated, would you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So it is really the soil that's being dated, right?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then it's not the bone that's being dated, right? but the substances from without the bone that entered the bone as it deteriorated, would you agree?

So what? We can tell when the materials that were fossilized were deposited.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is no longer relevant to me because of the attachment to species and clades some put on these things. Plus I no longer believe that humans living 20,000 years ago or so made pottery. Really no matter how scientists may size it up, I have come to believe the basic tenets or strongholds of their beliefs can be wrong. It can be that I will examine stringently the basics of dating and I have looked at it briefly, leading me to believe the initial presumption of dates can be wrong.

You know more than all the world's leading scientists, past and present. Got it.
Feel free to show us your work then.