I just posted a paper above showing a cross correlation between Suigetsu varves and volcanic eruptions going back 150,000 years. Neither you nor Sal will touch it. Why is that?
Yes they have. The answer, which really does successfully answer the question, is that the method doesn’t have the accuracy to determine the age of fossils if they are really old because the signal becomes indistinguishable from noise.
The numbers you get once it gets beyond a certain range become meaningless, you’re no longer measuring age. The background noise becomes so much greater than actual signal it can’t be distinguished.
Nothing circular about that.
Not true at all. Tektites are formed from molten material during impact. That’s why they’re round. They’re tiny little lava bombs. And I see you ignored all the other points about the impact.
The same reason scientists don’t go around trying to potassium-argon date literally every rock they pick up.
“Investigating every find to the fullest” does not mean “use literally every technique on literally every find”, for both technical and practical reasons.
The Moon is heavily cratered, and people from around the world have been observing continually. At no point in history do we have a record of a bombardment and massive crater formation. It’s always been that way. If the universe is 6500 years old, I think it’s safe to assume the moon was created with the illusion of having been bombarded.
I can’t see another explanation, Sal.
How about this?
I disagree. What if I said, “you’re embarassing yoruself, your’e not showing you bothered to think about the implications of what you studied.” That would be rude. Also the implication that I didn’t take a formal course doesn’t mean I haven’t studied the matter nor interacted with several professional geologists over the years.
But, again, we don’t have to agree or disagree on what is rude. We are in a dialogue, and if you give a point that has merit, and I think it deserves a response and I have energy to do so, I will. But I may put it on the bottom of the queue, especially if I sense you’re not giving weight to what I said either.
I could say, “study a little astrophysics and the problems of faint young sun paradox and stop embarassing yourself.” That would be rude. I’m just showing you how I perceive you and others are dealing with me. Or “study that permian basin diagram and exercise a little critical thinking before your respond because you’re embarrassing yourself.” I gave you a little hint of the problem by showing Pittman’s diagram on the problem of eroding smooth contact points.
This thread started because someone asked why I thought the fossil record is young. I give a laundry list or reasons I think why the evidence is overwhelming, and then someone else accuses me of gish galloping or ignoring their points. Fine, they don’t have to invest time responding at all.
FINALLY, if anyone wants to debate this or any other topic in a one-on-one in a live online debate, I’m willing to do it. I can’t reasonably respond to every querry and misrepresentation in a 10 against 1 free-for-all and then also lay out my case;
And seriously, AllenWinter didn’t properly appreciate the problem of the supposed ancient bacteria and instead called it a Trope and suggested only lay uneducated audiences would be persuaded by it. Not so. I didn’t treat him like you treated me by saying, “study a little more biology like the people whom I communicate with who, unlike you, are professors in that discipline, otherwise you’re embarrassing yourself.” I didn’t do that. I’m just showing you how I perceive your comments.
First, that’s not necessary. All that’s really needed to dispose of your claim is a lava flow above a fossiliferous layer, since the lava flow must be younger than the strata below it.
Second, I gave you several such examples in that paper about dating the Early Cambrian. There are three localities, but each one has more than one dated horizon.
what about a case of old DNA sequence without the result of contamination like this one?;
" The newly determined sequence was exactly the same as the sequence from GenBank. Thus, because the fossil sequence differs from all other sequences of Lauraceae reported to date, contamination seems highly unlikely."
What exactly do you think that this quote means?
that the DNA is indeed from the fossil. the problem is that DNA should not exist for so long time. at least according to this paper:
I don’t think you understand what you are reading. When I get a minute I will try and explain what they are saying. See, you think that the fossil they are referring to is in the area. Not so. They are cobbling together dates from where the original fossil was dated, and now including this area in Peru, trying to ‘bracket’ the age of a certain Triassic era.
I will try and explain later. But you are largely misunderstanding these articles. You indiscriminately throw them out as if they support you – and you are correct in that most people who read these articles do not even question them. But you forget you are dealing with a whole new paradigm which questions the very foundation of your paradigm, and so - yes, you must take a step back from your data and also see how it may very well support our paradigm, not just yours.
That one too is generally rejected by the people who do ancient DNA sequencing.
This is not an argument from science and does not support you. You stated nothing here that all of us do not already know. Can you answer my original challenge about dating the object and clock resetting? Or not?
where? can you give any reference for that claim that doesnt base on assumption? you should also expain this:
" The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis ."
Excellent. Please start by explaining this, from the abstract: " The sampled ash bed–bearing interval is located just above the last occurrence of the bivalve Monotis subcircularis". Now, I don’t have access to the full paper, but this does say that the ash bed is actually just above a fossiliferous stratum, which you seem to be denying.
This seems simple enough. If a rock is melted, or raised to a high enough temperature that atoms become mobile, then the clock is reset. This is basic science. If thats something that all of us already know, why are you denying it?
Check out any review of ancient DNA, for example this one.
Alright, hold on. Just a minute. The fossil could very well have been in the area, yes. So I add that correction to my initial statement. But here is what you are missing. They are taking fossils of identical organisms found in different areas, dating and getting different dates, and trying to narrow down a Triassic era. Which completely establishes my point that this information is “cobbled together”.
Now, true enough, that cobbling together does not bother you. Fine. But you must realize when another looks at your so-called evidence, they find support for an entirely different paradigm. You must give space to that kind of thinking. Or…you must show how
THE EVIDENCE ONLY SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW
Can you do that?
And when we do get access,l think you will see my point is validated.