What do you do with missing evidence? Like the global dirth of mid Jurassic fossils

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It must be so cool to be a creationist.

They know more than any scientist on
earth, and did not even have to study!!

Indeed: creationists actually believe the failed "actor" Kurt Cameron knows more than .... Stephen Hawking did...

 

[blü 2]

A global dearth of mid Jurassic fossils?

Good point. I don't have even one.

How long was the Jurassic supposed to be

The movie ran for 127 minutes, but that was just about the park. Still, perhaps we can extrapolate from that base.

and if so why a global dearth in a 54 million year time period

Is there a 'global dearth'? Where can I read about it?

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to

If one relies on the bible for one's science, one finds the earth existed before the stars did, had vegetation before the sun existed, is flat, the universe revolves around it, it's immovably fixed in space, pi=3, and so on and so on and so on.

Wikipedia is more reliable.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A more tropical world then a catastrophic flood followed by a short ice age

And yourself?

Good point. I don't have even one.
The movie ran for 127 minutes, but that was just about the park. Still, perhaps we can extrapolate from that base.
Is there a 'global dearth'? Where can I read about it?
If one relies on the bible for one's science, one finds the earth existed before the stars did, had vegetation before the sun existed, is flat, the universe revolves around it, it's immovably fixed in space, pi=3, and so on and so on and so on.

Wikipedia is more reliable.

Thank you

see Journey to Jurassic Island
Vertebrate life in the Middle Jurassic - from around 174 to 164 million years ago - is poorly studied because of a relative lack of available fossils, yet it was a geological epoch of critical importance as a time of major transformations.

OK 11 million years... with what a University of Cork archeologist called 'a global dearth of mid Jurasic fosils'

 

[whirlingmerc]

Thank you

see Journey to Jurassic Island
Vertebrate life in the Middle Jurassic - from around 174 to 164 million years ago - is poorly studied because of a relative lack of available fossils, yet it was a geological epoch of critical importance as a time of major transformations.

OK 11 million years... with what a University of Cork archeologist called 'a global dearth of mid Jurasic fosils'

I get they are counting the middle third? depending how you slice Jurasic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get they are counting the middle third? depending how you slice Jurasic?

Correct. The entire Jurassic is about fiftyfve million years long. The middle Jurassic is ten million years and that was determined by specific strata long before radiometric dating came along.

 

[David T]

A global dearth of mid Jurassic fossils?

How long was the Jurassic supposed to be and if so why a global dearth in a 54 million year time period

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to

how zeusian of you. Not even biblical. Might as well be an atheist.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Thank you

see Journey to Jurassic Island
Vertebrate life in the Middle Jurassic - from around 174 to 164 million years ago - is poorly studied because of a relative lack of available fossils, yet it was a geological epoch of critical importance as a time of major transformations.

OK 11 million years... with what a University of Cork archeologist called 'a global dearth of mid Jurasic fosils'

The statement "is poorly studied because of a relative lack of available fossils" was not a statement by a scientist, at least not in the linked article, and I'm not sure that a relative lack is the same thing as a dearth...and after reading it three times, including once backwards, I don't see the word dearth anywhere in the article...maybe it's just me...

 

[Audie]

Indeed: creationists actually believe the failed "actor" Kurt Cameron knows more than .... Stephen Hawking did...

Of course; nothing* is unbelievable.
They are believers. Believers believe
things. Painters paint, singers sing.
It is what they do.

*Now, you are jusr going to say "yeah
except maybe ToE."

 

[Audie]

Thank you

see Journey to Jurassic Island
Vertebrate life in the Middle Jurassic - from around 174 to 164 million years ago - is poorly studied because of a relative lack of available fossils, yet it was a geological epoch of critical importance as a time of major transformations.

OK 11 million years... with what a University of Cork archeologist called 'a global dearth of mid Jurasic fosils'

Apparently you dont know what an archaeologist is.

 

[Revoltingest]

A global dearth of mid Jurassic fossils?

How long was the Jurassic supposed to be and if so why a global dearth in a 54 million year time period

The Super Epic Psalms book 1- what the longer Psalm point to

To answer the titular question....
Continue searching for & researching fossils.

 

[Jumi]

There are many fossils from the beginning and end, there is a dearth in the middle 54 million years.
Perhaps the time scale claimed is just wrong.

Do you suppose supernatural things could have affected radiocarbon dating to make it seem like things are older?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you suppose supernatural things could have affected radiocarbon dating to make it seem like things are older?

Actually radiocarbon dating can only be altered to make things look younger in the case of dinosaur fossils. not that there are not ways to make young things look older.

Contamination of a fossil with new sources of carbon will give an artificially young date of objects that are past the "expiration date" of C14. One can also have continual production of C14 by other radioactive materials. That too will give an artificially young age.

For young materials, such as modern shellfish or other sea life one can run into the reservoir effect. That is where old carbon gets recycled into life. But if one knows enough even this sort of skewing of dates can be corrected:

Marine Reservoir Effect, Corrections to Radiocarbon Dates

Sorry to be so pedantic. But the term you meant to use was radiometric dating. And if one does not know what one is doing one can get incorrect dates using that method too.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually radiocarbon dating can only be altered to make things look younger in the case of dinosaur fossils. not that there are not ways to make young things look older.

Contamination of a fossil with new sources of carbon will give an artificially young date of objects that are past the "expiration date" of C14. One can also have continual production of C14 by other radioactive materials. That too will give an artificially young age.

For young materials, such as modern shellfish or other sea life one can run into the reservoir effect. That is where old carbon gets recycled into life. But if one knows enough even this sort of skewing of dates can be corrected:

Marine Reservoir Effect, Corrections to Radiocarbon Dates

Sorry to be so pedantic. But the term you meant to use was radiometric dating. And if one does not know what one is doing one can get incorrect dates using that method too.

Not so... can appear older if the assumptions used are wrong regarding the initial conditions

Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old WHy the discrepancy they assumption that new lava flow lacks Argon and all comes from radioactive decay post eruption was wrong

In any case the radio carbon dating is problematic. Cambrian diamonds have so much C14 in them it suggests they are thousands not millions of years old do to the half life of C14. Zircons which are the oldest things on earth have so much helium they also would be thousands not millions or billions of years due to the high diffusivity of helium.

Other problematic radiocarbon snafus include contamination by meteors which mathematically caused part of Siberian forests to appear dated 'in the future' due to wrong assumptions and of course living things have been dated with C14 to be 50,000 years old

In the end the unknown initial conditions and the unknown conditions since are both serious factors. Ground water variations can cause a geiger counter to click away in a cave some weeks and other weeks not and imaging the confusion of dating the cave rocks in those conditions.

 

[whirlingmerc]

how zeusian of you. Not even biblical. Might as well be an atheist.

Actually no... just pointing out the the claims are not consistent with the evidence. Oddly enough the claims of dinosaurs having feathers are often built from this sparse geological area. When I say Jurassic I mean claimed Jurassic strata. I do not agree with the claimed dates.

In Mt St Helens many lavered old looking strata was made over hours days and weeks and not thousand or millions of years, It happened due to rapid processes and clearly observed before and after to be so.

In the Grand Canyon, the coal samples from top to bottom of the strata, have remarkably similar C14 suggesting the whole stack formed in one catastrophic event like the flood of Noah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not so... can appear older if the assumptions used are wrong regarding the initial conditions

Some rocks from mount st hlens here dated using argon dating and those suggested the rocks were very very old WHy the discrepancy they assumption that new lava flow lacks Argon and all comes from radioactive decay post eruption was wrong

In any case the radio carbon dating is problematic. Cambrian diamonds have so much C14 in them it suggests they are thousands not millions of years old do to the half life of C14. Zircons which are the oldest things on earth have so much helium they also would be thousands not millions or billions of years due to the high diffusivity of helium.

Other problematic radiocarbon snafus include contamination by meteors which mathematically caused part of Siberian forests to appear dated 'in the future' due to wrong assumptions and of course living things have been dated with C14 to be 50,000 years old

In the end the unknown initial conditions and the unknown conditions since are both serious factors. Ground water variations can cause a geiger counter to click away in a cave some weeks and other weeks not and imaging the confusion of dating the cave rocks in those conditions.

And the Mt. St. Helens claim has been completely refuted. An incorrect dating method was used for such young material and he ignored the obvious. You can't do whole rock dating of young rock. Especially volcanic rock. Volcanic rock, especially volcanic rock from a violent eruption will tend to have xenocrysts and xenoliths in them making whole rock dating worthless.

Any idiot can misuse a tool, that does not mean that the tool is worthless. Using a screwdriver as a hammer does not mean that screwdrivers are not valid tools. There is a reason that peer review exists, it gets rid of the work of people that have no clue or are incredibly dishonest. Steve Austin, the person that dated those rocks, knew what he was doing wrong, and yet he did it anyway. That means that he lied to you.

Seriously, why would you believe someone that lied for Jesus? I would think that would be even more insulting to your God, if he exists, than people that deny his existence. Steve was saying in effect that Jesus is so weak that he has to lie to help him.

 

[whirlingmerc]

And the Mt. St. Helens claim has been completely refuted. An incorrect dating method was used for such young material and he ignored the obvious. You can't do whole rock dating of young rock. Especially volcanic rock. Volcanic rock, especially volcanic rock from a violent eruption will tend to have xenocrysts and xenoliths in them making whole rock dating worthless.

Any idiot can misuse a tool, that does not mean that the tool is worthless. Using a screwdriver as a hammer does not mean that screwdrivers are not valid tools. There is a reason that peer review exists, it gets rid of the work of people that have no clue or are incredibly dishonest. Steve Austin, the person that dated those rocks, knew what he was doing wrong, and yet he did it anyway. That means that he lied to you.

Seriously, why would you believe someone that lied for Jesus? I would think that would be even more insulting to your God, if he exists, than people that deny his existence. Steve was saying in effect that Jesus is so weak that he has to lie to help him.

Hardly.

If you don't know the initial conditions or the conditions since, it is no surprise that dates are problematic or wrong.

By 'completely refuted' I think you mean 'disagreed with' by people with prior assumptions being challenged which is not the same.

 

[Jumi]

Sorry to be so pedantic. But the term you meant to use was radiometric dating. And if one does not know what one is doing one can get incorrect dates using that method too.

I don't mind. I was interested in the topic many years ago, so the terms in my mind are not that fresh.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't mind. I was interested in the topic many years ago, so the terms in my mind are not that fresh.

actually the samples were sent to a lab and not done by Austin

 

[Jumi]

actually the samples were sent to a lab and not done by Austin

If they were working with an incorrect method under his orders, isn't it all the same though? If I pay for some lab to analyze a blood sample and use an improperly stored one, is it my fault or the labs if the results suck... or should we do away with blood tests all together, if we don't like what they say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hardly.

If you don't know the initial conditions or the conditions since, it is no surprise that dates are problematic or wrong.

By 'completely refuted' I think you mean 'disagreed with' by people with prior assumptions being challenged which is not the same.

You don't seem to understand that we can know the initial conditions. You can't know the initial conditions since you avoid education, that does not mean that others cannot know. And our knowledge of initial conditions enable us to know when someone really screwed up in doing tests or in the case of Steve Austin, lied about the tests.