Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] Fw: Oldest Fossils article

Expand Messages
  • atfsoccer@aol.com
    JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) -- A collection of South African ... My question to ther group is: As a young earth creationist what suggestions would
    Message 1 of 10 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) -- A collection of South African
      > > humanoid fossils is far older than previously thought, and may represent
      > > the oldest direct link to humanity, researchers said.
      > > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers from
      > > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had shown that
      > > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
      > > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.


      My question to ther group is:
      "As a young earth creationist what suggestions would you have for me in terms of harmonizing this scientific evidence with the Genesis account?"

      Andrew
    • wdwilder@wmconnect.com
      australipithicans are Apes similar to other great apes no tools no evidence of culture and small brains below 700cc and the limbs are tree climbing. spo what
      Message 2 of 10 , May 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        australipithicans are Apes similar to other great apes no tools no evidence of culture and small brains below 700cc and the limbs are tree climbing. spo what new about finbdiung apes in africa?  
      • sraysherman
        Andrew: First of all examine the track record of the dating method used. If they are dating fossils by the rock layers then you know they are dating the rock
        Message 3 of 10 , May 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Andrew:
          First of all examine the track record of the dating method used. If
          they are dating fossils by the rock layers then you know they are
          dating the rock layers by the fossils totally circular and totally
          illogical. If they are using radiometric dating, Know this; it only
          works when they don't already know how old it is. If they know how
          old it is then they say the sample was corrupted or too young to get
          an accurate reading.
          and since they deny the Flood they can't even take into account how
          it affects any thing they might dig up.



          --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, atfsoccer@a... wrote:
          > JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) -- A collection of South
          African
          > > > humanoid fossils is far older than previously thought, and may
          represent
          > > > the oldest direct link to humanity, researchers said.
          > > > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers
          from
          > > > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had
          shown that
          > > > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
          > > > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
          >
          >
          > My question to ther group is:
          > "As a young earth creationist what suggestions would you have for
          me in terms of harmonizing this scientific evidence with the Genesis
          account?"
          >
          > Andrew
        • Chris Ashcraft
          While I agree that young dated rocks would be automatically excluded, I dont think it is deniable that there is a general correlation between increased
          Message 4 of 10 , May 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment

            While I agree that young dated rocks would be automatically excluded, I dont think it is deniable that there is a general correlation between increased radioactive decay and the depth at which a fossil was buried in the geological column. I am willing to entertain all manner of theories, but none yet seem to adequately explain this trend for such a broad number of isotopes.

            I have no doubt the environment present during the flood was largely responsible. Heat from volcanism or the fountains of the deep (black smokers), and pressure from the flood water or overlying sediments was very significant, and would have effected some of these dating techniques certainly. I have begun a study of agedating techniques and have a good number of creationary resources on the page below, but can use any insight the group might possess.

            Age Dating
            http://www.nwcreation.net/agedating.html

             sraysherman <sraysherman@...> wrote:

            Andrew:
            First of all examine the track record of the dating method used. If
            they are dating fossils by the rock layers then you know they are
            dating the rock layers by the fossils totally circular and totally
            illogical. If they are using radiometric dating, Know this; it only
            works when they don't already know how old it is. If they know how
            old it is then they say the sample was corrupted or too young to get
            an accurate reading.
            and since they deny the Flood they can't even take into account how
            it affects any thing they might dig up.



            --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, atfsoccer@a... wrote:
            > JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) -- A collection of South
            African
            > > > humanoid fossils is far older than previously thought, and may
            represent
            > > > the oldest direct link to humanity, researchers said.
            > > > After analyzing specimens with a new dating method, researchers
            from
            > > > Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand said they had
            shown that
            > > > remains from the world's richest hominid fossil site, the nearby
            > > > Sterkfontein caves, were more than four million years old.
            >
            >
            > My question to ther group is:
            > "As a young earth creationist what suggestions would you have for
            me in terms of harmonizing this scientific evidence with the Genesis
            account?"
            >
            > Andrew



            CreationTalk Discussion Group
            Creation Science Resource
            http://nwcreation.net/

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            Christopher W. Ashcraft

          • Charles Creager Jr.
            Chris Ashcraft wrote: While I agree that young dated rocks would be automatically excluded, Excessively old dates also tend to be automatically excluded.
            Message 5 of 10 , May 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Chris Ashcraft wrote:

              While I agree that young dated rocks would be automatically excluded,

              Excessively old dates also tend to be automatically excluded. Between both of sets of automatic exclusions are only dates that support the up down trend of the geological column.

              I dont think it is deniable that there is a general correlation between increased radioactive decay and the depth at which a fossil was buried in the geological column.

              There are several problems here.

              First of all the implication of a real correlation between location in so called the geologic column and actual depth. The fact is there is no such correlation exists. I know of a cambrian site in New York that has an actual depth of about 5 ft and a Jurassic site in Connecticut that is about 50 ft.

              Also the when you look at unfiltered data It is clear that the alleged correlation between increased radioactive decay and the position in the geological column and physical depth is based on selecting dates that agree with the geological column. Here are three examples from the Grand Canyon they are in order of depth. This chart is from:
              http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i11f.htm
               
               

              Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years

              FormationK-ArK-Ar IsochronRb-SrRb-Sr IsochronPb-Pb Isocrhon
              Uinkaret Plateau0.01    
              1.0 - 1.4    
              2.63    
              3.6    
              3.67    
                1230 - 13101300 - 1380 
                1260 - 1380 
                1310 - 1370 
                1320 - 1440 
                1360 - 1420 
                  2390 - 2810
              Cardenas Bassalt771 - 811682 - 748   
              809 - 877   
              838 - 868   
              780 - 820920 - 10401000 - 1140 
              800 - 840990 -1130  
                990 - 1190 
                1010-1170 
                1030 - 1110 
                1050 - 1150 
              Diabase Sill874 - 954926   
              924 - 984   
                680 - 10201000 - 1140 
                740 - 1100 
                1030 - 1070 
                1030 - 1090 
                1100 - 1280 
                1300 - 1440 

              While K-Ar does show a general increase in radiometric age with depth it is not perfect. The youngest "date" for the Diabase Sill is 874 million and the oldest for the Cardenas Bassalt is 877 million.

              Now  the Rb-Sr "date" are actually have the youngest dates at the bottom  and the oldest dates the top. How ever the oldest date is on both the top and the bottom. The Rb-Sr Isochron shows an indisputable decrease in "age" with depth.

              Further more both the youngest "date" 10,000 years ( K-Ar )and the oldest "date" 2.81 billion years ( Pb-Pb Isocrhon ) are on the top in the Uinkaret Plateau.

              I for one would say that the claim of such a trend is quite deniable. As I have studied this. The sources that give data in support such a trend seem to always use dates that have been through the geological column filter, and so would give appear to show a trend.

              --- Charles Creager Jr.
               
               
               

            • Dan Cadd
              Along the general topic of the way evolutionist s date things, then state them as fact, my brother tells a funny story. He and his wife were visiting the
              Message 6 of 10 , May 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Along the general topic of the way evolutionist's date things, then state them as fact, my brother tells a funny story.  He and his wife were visiting the Oregon Sealion caves, and they were being taken through them with a guide who was telling the group how long different things in the cave took to form.  She proceeded to tell the group that the stalactites took (I don't remember the exact numbers he told me, but something like) 50,000 to 100,000 years to form.  Then a old man in his 80's or 90's right in front of my brother chuckled and leaned over to his wife and told her (loud enough that my brother and his wife could hear him) that when he was a kid, he and his friends had knocked down most of the stalactites in this very cave.  Which means they had grown back in 70-80 years.
                 
                Dan
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 9:34 AM
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Fw: Oldest Fossils article

                Chris Ashcraft wrote:

                While I agree that young dated rocks would be automatically excluded,

                Excessively old dates also tend to be automatically excluded. Between both of sets of automatic exclusions are only dates that support the up down trend of the geological column.

                I dont think it is deniable that there is a general correlation between increased radioactive decay and the depth at which a fossil was buried in the geological column.

                There are several problems here.

                First of all the implication of a real correlation between location in so called the geologic column and actual depth. The fact is there is no such correlation exists. I know of a cambrian site in New York that has an actual depth of about 5 ft and a Jurassic site in Connecticut that is about 50 ft.

                Also the when you look at unfiltered data It is clear that the alleged correlation between increased radioactive decay and the position in the geological column and physical depth is based on selecting dates that agree with the geological column. Here are three examples from the Grand Canyon they are in order of depth. This chart is from:
                http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i11f.htm
                 
                 

                Ages of Rocks in Millions of Years

                FormationK-ArK-Ar IsochronRb-SrRb-Sr IsochronPb-Pb Isocrhon
                Uinkaret Plateau0.01    
                1.0 - 1.4    
                2.63    
                3.6    
                3.67    
                  1230 - 13101300 - 1380 
                  1260 - 1380 
                  1310 - 1370 
                  1320 - 1440 
                  1360 - 1420 
                    2390 - 2810
                Cardenas Bassalt771 - 811682 - 748   
                809 - 877   
                838 - 868   
                780 - 820920 - 10401000 - 1140 
                800 - 840990 -1130  
                  990 - 1190 
                  1010-1170 
                  1030 - 1110 
                  1050 - 1150 
                Diabase Sill874 - 954926   
                924 - 984   
                  680 - 10201000 - 1140 
                  740 - 1100 
                  1030 - 1070 
                  1030 - 1090 
                  1100 - 1280 
                  1300 - 1440 

                While K-Ar does show a general increase in radiometric age with depth it is not perfect. The youngest "date" for the Diabase Sill is 874 million and the oldest for the Cardenas Bassalt is 877 million.

                Now  the Rb-Sr "date" are actually have the youngest dates at the bottom  and the oldest dates the top. How ever the oldest date is on both the top and the bottom. The Rb-Sr Isochron shows an indisputable decrease in "age" with depth.

                Further more both the youngest "date" 10,000 years ( K-Ar )and the oldest "date" 2.81 billion years ( Pb-Pb Isocrhon ) are on the top in the Uinkaret Plateau.

                I for one would say that the claim of such a trend is quite deniable. As I have studied this. The sources that give data in support such a trend seem to always use dates that have been through the geological column filter, and so would give appear to show a trend.

                --- Charles Creager Jr.
                 
                 
                 

                CreationTalk Discussion Group
                Creation Science Resource
                http://nwcreation.net/

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                CreationTalk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

              • Chris Ashcraft
                I recently gave a seminar on geology and the flood, and went ahead and dodged the whole issue of age dating trends altogether. I would agree that ages are
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 14, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I recently gave a seminar on geology and the flood, and went ahead and dodged the whole issue of age dating trends altogether. I would agree that ages are rejected or denied based on whether or not they fit into the accepted interpretation of the geological column. However, I also note that there are apparently age dating trends from the midoceanic ridge outward to the continental shelf. The ridge dating the youngest and outwardly they find more radio decay. I'm sure there is an explanation for apparent trends, and assume that heat or pressure has caused an effect despite the claims that they do not.
                   
                  I do like the argument we currently have for C-14 dating. I'm a little distrubed by the fact that even young earth creationists will tend to assume the earth is probably older than 6000 due to radiocarbon dating. It would seem that to many a few thousand years of Biblical error is acceptable. Nevertheless, the answer to the excessive C-14 dates is apparently due to assumptions that C-14 production in the atmosphere has been constant during the development of life on earth.
                   
                  If the earth is billions of years old, then the rate of production and decay should have reached steady-state a long time ago. It is assumed that the rates should be at equilibrium, but today we know that the rate of C-14 production exceeds the rate of decay by as much as 25%. This increase is attributed to the recent industrial revolution, and believed primarily due to astomspheric nuclear testing. Again it is assumed that before the industrial revolution the rates would have been at steady-state. Therefore to correct for the increased rate of C-14 production, a sample is used from early in the 19th century as a standardizing reference.
                   
                  If the rate of C-14 production was less in the past than it is today, then those samples would date excessively old. There is good evidence that our atmosphere changed as a result of the flood (no rainbow before), and is still changing (global warming, ozone hole, etc). Belief in an old earth has led to assumptions that C-14 production should be at stead-state. Radiocarbon is therefore being used for dating when we simply have no way to determine what the rates of C-14 production were in the past. 

                  "Charles Creager Jr." <cpcjr@...> wrote:

                  I for one would say that the claim of such a trend is quite deniable. As I have studied this. The sources that give data in support such a trend seem to always use dates that have been through the geological column filter, and so would give appear to show a trend.



                  Christopher W. Ashcraft

                • Charles Creager Jr.
                  ... not they fit ... However, I also note ... ridge outward ... outwardly they find ... trends, and ... claims that they ... It would would not surprise if the
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 16, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Chris Ashcraft wrote:

                    > I would agree that ages are rejected or denied based on whether or

                    not they fit
                    >  into the accepted interpretation of the geological column.
                    However, I also note
                    >  that there are apparently age dating trends from the mid oceanic
                    ridge outward
                    >  to the continental shelf. The ridge dating the youngest and
                    outwardly they find
                    >  more radio decay. I'm sure there is an explanation for apparent
                    trends, and
                    >  assume that heat or pressure has caused an effect despite the
                    claims that they
                    >  do not.

                    It would would not surprise if the apparent trend in the ocean floor results from the dame kind of filtering, but even if the trend is real it is a totally different problem.

                    There are several questions I would like answered.

                    1. How many samples were taken.
                    2. How close were they taken together were they.
                    3. How much did the dating labs know about the samples.
                        a. Did they know were the samples were taken from.
                        b. Did they know what trend was expected.

                    The answers to #3 are critical to the honesty of the process. If the answer to 3a and 3b are yes then the evidence for a trend is highly questionable.

                    It would also help to see some site verses "date" data. Raw data onisotope ratios found at each site would help.

                    --- Charles Creager Jr.
                     
                     

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.