Wrong, I believe both have contamination. Even the carbon-dated sample.
I have never subscribed to accelerated nuclear decay during the Flood. Is that what you are referring to?
Incorrect. But what they do know how to do is sell their results to the public as accurate. They will never rise above contaminated samples so long as they are trying to date magma flows from deep within the planet.
No. It’s a well-known reality that the fitness values associated with individual sites in a protein are usually affected by varying levels of intramolecular epistasis, (that the “optimal” amino acid at some given position can depend strongly on what amino acid is present at some other position throughout the protein’s structure).
But also that at many positions within the protein, even as some residue might interact epistatically with another, there can be several permitted amino acids with neglible fitness differences, such that there are several possible alternative amino acids with similar high fitness associated with them. It really is quite rare that there is both a single unique amino acid that is significantly better than all the rest with no other residue being close and that it remains the best one even in the context of changes at many other locations throughout the protein’s structure.
This is why extensive convergence of an entire protein a hundred or more amino acids long is thought to be very unlikely, but a handful of convergent sites out of hundreds are not.
Im sorry but you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Incorrect. Re-Os dating can be used on organic-rich black shale, for example. The Rhenium and Osmium radionuclides are found in the organic material in the shale, they’re not some kind of contaminant that leaches into the rock later.
1 Like
I’d love to hear your explanation as to why the radiometric dates of tephra layers found in the Lake Suigetsu varves correlate precisely with the visual varve counts back to 150K YBP. Do you have one? 
Abstract: The Lake Suigetsu SG06 sedimentary archive from Honshu Island, central Japan, provides a high-resolution palaeoenvironmental record, including a detailed record of explosive volcanism from Japan and South Korea. Thirty visible tephra are recorded within the 73 m-long SG06 core, which spans the last ∼150 ka. Here we describe and characterise these tephras based on major element glass composition, which is useful for the identification and correlation of these tephras and the age models of the records in which they are found. Utilising the large number of radiocarbon measurements ( n > 600) from terrestrial plant macrofossils in the Lake Suigetsu SG06 record, we are able to provide precise and accurate ages for the tephras from eruptions within the last 50 ka. Glass compositional data of some of the largest eruptions from Japan (K-Ah, AT, Aso-4, Aso-A, Aso-D, and Ata; sampled at proximal outcrops) are also presented. These data show that the major element glass chemistry is distinctive for many of the visible SG06 tephra units, and allows some of the layers to be correlated to known eruptions from volcanoes in Japan and South Korea, namely K-Ah (SG06-0967), U-Oki (SG06-1288), AT (SG06-2650), Aso-4 (SG06-4963/SG06-4979), K-Tz (SG06-5181), Aso-ABCD (SG06-5287) and Ata (SG06-5181). The following ages were obtained for the SG06 tephra units: 3.966–4.064 cal. ka BP (95.4% probability range) for the SG06-0588 tephra, 10.242–10.329 cal. ka BP (95.4% probability range) for SG06-1293, 19.487 ± 112 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-1965, 28.425 ± 194 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-2504, 28.848 ± 196 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-2534, 29.765 ± 190 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-2601, 29.775 ± 191 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-2602, 43.713 ± 156 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-3485, 46.364 ± 202 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-3668, 49.974 ± 337 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-3912, 50.929 ± 378 SG062012 ka BP (2 σ ) for SG06-3974, and improved ages for two of the most important tephra markers across Japan, the K-Ah (7.165–7.303 cal. ka BP at 95.4% probability range; SG06-0967) and AT tephra (30.009 ± 189 SG062012 ka BP at 2 σ ; SG06-2650).
1 Like
I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. The people that they have to sell their results to as accurate are the oil industry. And the only way they will sell their results to the oil industry as accurate is by making sure that they jolly well are accurate. There was a thread here just recently where a couple of petroleum geologists told us all about the level of scrutiny they have to face. If they were adjusting their geology to fit their theology, they would send the oil companies on a multi-billion dollar wild goose chase drilling in all the wrong places, the radiometric labs would end up getting sued out of their insurances, and the “evolutionists” who work there would end up flipping burgers in McDonald’s.
Here’s the score, @r_speir. If you want people to take LSDYEC seriously, come up with a young-earth Flood Geology model that predicts where to find oil. Start a company that uses that model in the field to actually find oil. Show us its audited balance sheets. And tell us all about it, so that we can buy shares in it.
OK then, so how, in a young Earth, does lead get into zircons in granites in quantities comparable to the amount of uranium in them, when its valence and atomic radius, being incompatible with the crystallographic structure of ZrSiO4, rule out the possibility of contamination? Provide us with a credible model, and show us the maths.
1 Like
Well, there is no conjecture regarding the age of the Earth. I’ll grant the evidence of early life is indirect but it exists.
1 Like
You are being misled by the ‘science’. Apparently what they are doing is applying starting assumptions of old dates in the math. Nothing organic is going to be dated in the millions of years.
She is correct to label your dates as “conjecture”. What they are doing is dating something from within the interior of the planet, never directly dating fossils or the sediments themselves. Never.
it is perfectly fine to provide the relative ages of material on the surface of the planet if it helps in the oil industry. But what is not fine it to try and assign those relative ages to sediments or fossils.
I have discussed this thoroughly in another thread over a year ago here. But tell me, why is there evidence of helium retention in zircons?
Well, having read many of your other comments, I’d expect
nothing less. You’ve shown no interest or understanding of the science.
Good grief. What is the issue here, really? Accepting facts as they are doesn’t undermine the teaching of Jesus in any way.
1 Like
Oh ok, you’re not interested in the science, just in making unfounded claims against techniques you don’t like for theological reasons. Got it. I won’t waste more of my time.
3 Likes
On the contrary, @r_speir, it is essential for petroleum geologists to know – not just “assign” – the absolute ages of the oil deposits themselves, deep underground.
Ever heard of the Arrhenius Equation? Ever tried to bake a cake?
-
Give us a link to the place where you discussed it, please.
-
Because helium does not leak out of zircons under the high pressure conditions found a mile or more underground anywhere near as quickly as it does on the surface. The RATE project’s fudged study did not take that factor into account.
2 Likes
That’s trivial. It’s just gene duplication (literally resulting in an extra copy of some segment of DNA) or other types of insertions then. These types of mutations that result in more “genetic letters” are quite common.
1 Like
I never accused the oil industry of “assigning” ages. They are doing their job just fine. You are the ones exercising faulty science. You are the ones trying to assign false ages to fossils. Leave the oil industry out of the argument.
Way too long ago. Don’t have it. You are welcome to find it. I think it went something like this in a discussion with @John_Harshman: he was never able to prove the presence of a native zircon above fossiliferous layers or sandwiched between them.
Sure, where’s the link? I will take a look but it will be found that you are wrong. Where is the link?
Why did I know r_speir would have no comment on this paper?
1 Like