Sigh. If I ask why you believe that folded rocks suggest rapid deposition and rapid folding, will you answer with any kind of detail or just continue your gish gallop?
Then you should put some effort into providing details and responding to critiques. If I was designing a curriculum, Iâd want to have all my arguments reviewed systematically, but you seem more interested in just throwing out as many as possible with little regard for what we have to say.
I was being entirely sincere. I donât think youâve taken the time to sit down and learn basic geology, and instead you rely on secondary (creationist) sources telling you âgeology canât explain thisâ. For your own sake, if not the sake of your students, Iâd advise that you study the subject yourself.
Yes it was. If it had bee 250 million years old, rRNA analysis would have shown that.
We know life is old for other reasons, not because of assumptions. It is those other reasons that allow us to use rRNA analysis as a test of age. That analysis says it is a modern contaminant. Since contamination is extremely easy and common, it is on balance incredibly much more likely to be a contaminant(as in it is incredibly much more likely that the authors are just plain wrong when they INSIST INTENSELY that their salt crystal could not have recrystallized over the course of 250 million years), than it is all the independent methods for dating are all wrong about life and Earthâs age.
This is how the reasoning works. Itâs not circular. There are no assumptions, there is other kinds of evidence that canât just be dismissed, and in light of which another explanations is much more likely.
In order to really establish that this life is actually young, youâd need an enormous amount of evidence to overturn all the other independent lines already collected. If you have a mountain of evidence for X, and one putative piece of evidence for Y while also having a perfectly reasonable explanation for how you can obtain Y with X being true, then that single piece of evidence for Y simply doesnât have the power to overturn X.
Youâd need to collect just as many pieces of evidence for Y as there is for X to even begin casting doubt on X, and youâd need to keep collecting more and more evidence for Y to change odds over to be strongly in favor of Y. There should be mountains of evidence for Y all of which would have to be extremely robust.
Unanswered questions on X arenât automatically evidence for Y, and weak evidence for X isnât evidence for Y.
Your handful of tropes, such as Amino acid racemization, and Faint Young Sun paradox isnât evidence for Y. Theyâre at best just not evidence for X. To be evidence for Y, you need Y to make specific testable predictions. What does Y say we should expect to find about amino acid racemization? Well if Life and Earth is 6000 years old, then amino acid racemization should all bottom out at 6000 years.
They donât. So amino acid racemization isnât evidence for Y, at best itâs just bad and unreliable evidence for X.
What does Y say about the Faint Young Sun paradox if the solar system is 6000 years old? Well, it doesnât say anything really. The solar system being 6000 years old makes no predictions about what stage in the Sunâs evolutionary stages it was created. So it canât be evidence for Y.
And so on ad infinitum. All your arguments are bad. None of them amount to evidence that Earth or life is young, at best youâre just showing that some particular questions are unanswered or fail to constitute evidence for an old Earth/life/solar system.
2 Likes
Those tektites you are hoping in are simply burnt material ejected from the asteroid hit. They do not have an internal clock that has been reset, or one that can be trusted to date anything but the very old material that already existed in the earthâs crust.
Ditto that remark. All I have seen in about 20 - 25 responses from these guys is pure noise. Hey guys, how about some real science to back up your noise.
I think your principle is a cobbled-together graph or picture from several different sites around the globe. Please include one here where fossiliferous layers stacked neatly in a single location are shown to be sandwiched in-between undisturbed lava flows. That would help us in having a meaningful conversation.
Oh, and by the way, no one has ever successfully answered the question of why an authentic scientist, for instance, a paleontologist, would not be eager to carbon date any kind of soft tissue find in any fossil found, no matter how old it was construed to be. That is, unless circular reasoning, or a priori assumptions, or fear of funding cuts were at play.
Isnât that a responsibility of a real scientist? To investigate every find to the fullest? Isnât that what kids are taught in science to do?
Why are we not regularly carbon-dating soft tissue finds in fossils?
Are you saying that itâs invalid to build up a picture of the geologic column based on correlations of strata across long distances?
Well thatâs trivial to do, hereâs a random, recently-published example that you could have found with just a few minutes of googling:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/42/7/571/131590/
I should also point out that bracketing isnât the only dating method available, there are also techniques that can be used on younger (but still ancient) timescales, such as 26Al/10Be that can date the very sediments remains/fossils are buried in. See this recent paper for an example: 26Al/10Be Burial Dating of the Middle Pleistocene Yiyuan Hominin Fossil Site, Shandong Province, Northern China | Scientific Reports
Hereâs an example of dating sedimentary rocks (black shales), rather than igneous rocks, to produce a bracketed age for a fossil:
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/46/2/135/524864/
1 Like
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?
1 Like
Yes they have. The answer, which really does successfully answer the question, is that the method doesnât 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, youâre no longer measuring age. The background noise becomes so much greater than actual signal it canât be distinguished.
Nothing circular about that.
Not true at all. Tektites are formed from molten material during impact. Thatâs why theyâre round. Theyâre tiny little lava bombs. And I see you ignored all the other points about the impact.
The same reason scientists donât go around trying to potassium-argon date literally every rock they pick up.
âInvestigating every find to the fullestâ does not mean âuse literally every technique on literally every findâ, for both technical and practical reasons.
2 Likes
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. Itâs always been that way. If the universe is 6500 years old, I think itâs safe to assume the moon was created with the illusion of having been bombarded.
I canât see another explanation, Sal.
1 Like
How about this?
https://naturalishistoria.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/tephra-suigetsu-varves-lake-chronology1.png
From here: Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll
2 Likes
I disagree. What if I said, âyouâre embarassing yoruself, yourâe not showing you bothered to think about the implications of what you studied.â That would be rude. Also the implication that I didnât take a formal course doesnât mean I havenât studied the matter nor interacted with several professional geologists over the years.
But, again, we donât 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 youâre not giving weight to what I said either.
I could say, âstudy a little astrophysics and the problems of faint young sun paradox and stop embarassing yourself.â That would be rude. Iâm just showing you how I perceive you and others are dealing with me. Or âstudy that permian basin diagram and exercise a little critical thinking before your respond because youâre embarrassing yourself.â I gave you a little hint of the problem by showing Pittmanâs 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 donât 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, Iâm willing to do it. I canât 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 didnât 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 didnât treat him like you treated me by saying, âstudy a little more biology like the people whom I communicate with who, unlike you, are professors in that discipline, otherwise youâre embarrassing yourself.â I didnât do that. Iâm just showing you how I perceive your comments.
First, thatâs not necessary. All thatâs 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?;
https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3732/ajb.91.4.615
" 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:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains