Pelecius:

Well, the reason I go with the relative dating is that it is easier and handy since the age assigned to geologic column is fixed instead of the expensive radiometric dating of the rock in which they are found. Now I don't mean that the rocks are not dated but it is a common experience among geologists that age according to local geology is mostly different to that gotten from radiometric dating. And this is because of the different issues which radiometric dating have, hence such dates are easily discarded.

Like I agreed, knowing decay rate and number of daughter atoms present, one can calculate the 'age' when a rock cooled but the reason why such ages are not taken serious by some (young earthers mostly) is that: different dating methods give different rates, the assumptions as stated before and the worst case is that rocks whose ages are known gave millions of years when dated. And as I stated before, there are other geochemical activities that shows decay rates may either be accelerated in the past or even point to lesser age but this is like challenging the ruling paradigm - such works don't eventually get published though other scientist write their form of rebuttals.
This is why I may not take the statement "radiometric dating is the closest thing to perfection" as 'perfect'.
For the last statement, the scientific community have a consensus and dissenters are persecuted severely (Galileo is a good example), so it may take a 'miracle' for them to accept a very good evidence that goes against the ruling paradigm as concrete. But what do I know sef

@bolded: Isn't that I why I specifically used the expression "closest to perfect". I mean, right from the first post, no one ever suggested you should take any dating method as perfect. I never for once said absolute dating is perfect. If I had wanted to say 'perfect', I'd use the word 'perfect'. But I said 'closest to perfect' which means it's not perfect but better than others. So you saying "I'm not taking 'closest to perfect' as 'perfect'" and making an argument around that when it was never in contention as it was clearly stated is somewhat confusing, bro.

Nevertheless, it was an insightful discussion. Thanks.

Signs of the End time, using ideas and knowledge to invent diseases , LORD JESUS HELP US TO REMAIN DEVOTED TO YOUR WILL IN THIS SINFUL GENERATION .AMEN

Bahamas95:
Please both if you got any idea.........Am really curious.

Well, according to young earth creationists, based on some literal interpretations of the Bible. the world is only around 10,000-6,000 years old.

The geological and scientific consensus is that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

This age of the earth represent the age of the Earth's core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material, which is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

D sud stop dis nonsense

Am beginning to think that the whites now lie more than our dear Lai Mohammed.....hahahahah

Pelecius:

Well, the reason I go with the relative dating is that it is easier and handy since the age assigned to geologic column is fixed instead of the expensive radiometric dating of the rock in which they are found. Now I don't mean that the rocks are not dated but it is a common experience among geologists that age according to local geology is mostly different to that gotten from radiometric dating. And this is because of the different issues which radiometric dating have, hence such dates are easily discarded.

Like I agreed, knowing decay rate and number of daughter atoms present, one can calculate the 'age' when a rock cooled but the reason why such ages are not taken serious by some (young earthers mostly) is that: different dating methods give different rates, the assumptions as stated before and the worst case is that rocks whose ages are known gave millions of years when dated. And as I stated before, there are other geochemical activities that shows decay rates may either be accelerated in the past or even point to lesser age but this is like challenging the ruling paradigm - such works don't eventually get published though other scientist write their form of rebuttals.
This is why I may not take the statement "radiometric dating is the closest thing to perfection" as 'perfect'.
For the last statement, the scientific community have a consensus and dissenters are persecuted severely (Galileo is a good example), so it may take a 'miracle' for them to accept a very good evidence that goes against the ruling paradigm as concrete. But what do I know sef

Biko , how long does it take for bones to decomposes ?

Why the carbon dating measured relatively to millions of years,?

Does it give the relative amount of time for us to calculate the timing.

Does the isotopic decay correspond to the bone or tissue decay

Does this not throw more questions than answers to the dating techique

IMAliyu:

Well, according to young earth creationists, based on some literal interpretations of the Bible. the world is only around 10,000-6,000 years old.

The geological and scientific consensus is that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

This age of the earth represent the age of the Earth's core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material, which is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Thanks for the explanation.

etrange:


The daughter isotope (new stable isotope) is gotten from the fossil(or rocks surrounding the fossil) while parent isotope is the original element that has lost stability. The dating element used depends on the elements found in the fossil (or surrounding rocks).

All right. Thanks.

Koolyarn:



Biko , how long does it take for bones to decomposes ?

Why the carbon dating measured relatively to millions of years,?

Does it give the relative amount of time for us to calculate the timing.

Does the isotopic decay correspond to the bone or tissue decay

Does this not throw more questions than answers to the dating techique

I tried deciding this but I couldn't

etrange:


@bolded: Isn't that I why I specifically used the expression "closest to perfect". I mean, right from the first post, no one ever suggested you should take any dating method as perfect. I never for once said absolute dating is perfect. If I had wanted to say 'perfect', I'd use the word 'perfect'. But I said 'closest to perfect' which means it's not perfect but better than others. So you saying "I'm not taking 'closest to perfect' as 'perfect'" and making an argument around that when it was never in contention as it was clearly stated is somewhat confusing, bro.

Nevertheless, it was an insightful discussion. Thanks.

I said that because no other alternative is actually allowed though I get your point initially and it was not to entirely fault it at all but for sake of others who may see at as Π = 22/7 (An absolute truth).

Thanks you Sir

tollyboy5:

Don't be misinformed the church being in the affairs of government back then persecuted Galileo galililee , it years later when the power of the church reduced and people became more enlighten before sir Isaac newton was able to put to them fact not illusion

Though someone has responded already, I think I know about the Galileo affair before using it as an example of dissenters.
My illustration was definitely different from the picture of the average person about him.
Keppler rightly put it. He ws going against the ruling paradigm of that time, the best of science which was Geocentricity which the church also settled with.

Pelecius:

I tried deciding this but I couldn't

That wasn't the reply expected so it will be ignored.totally flat

For a start, I read Physics as major and the similar questions were thrown at my lecturer but no answer.
Carbon dating 14 have serious flaws and cannot be used for more than 20,000 years. I think is far less.
It is the fair" we have around but always have it inherent flaws. How old is the earth? How old are bones before decomposing.
Secondly water has been known to affect carbon dating, another serious flaws.

My initial questions are to determine if you could provide answers at the lowest stratum but seems I was roudly disappointed.
I guess I stay I'm my inquisitive lane while you stay on yours
Another thing please You got no case on the church

Koolyarn:


That wasn't the reply expected so it will be ignored.totally flat

For a start, I read Physics as major and the similar questions were thrown at my lecturer but no answer.
Carbon dating 14 have serious flaws and cannot be used for more than 20,000 years. I think is far less.
It is the fair" we have around but always have it inherent flaws. How old is the earth? How old are bones before decomposing.
Secondly water has been known to affect carbon dating, another serious flaws.

My initial questions are to determine if you could provide answers at the lowest stratum but seems I was roudly disappointed.
I guess I stay I'm my inquisitive lane while you stay on yours
Another thing please You got no case on the church

I was thinking in such direction with your initial questions but it was not just clear (worded clearly)

If you've read my comments in this thread, you should see that you don't need to ask me such questions as I definitely showed why the secular dating should not be taken really seriously.

Just some points;
1.Million year old fossils are not carbon dated. So it's not about carbon dating here, it's other forms such as Ur - Pb, K - Ar, etc.

2.Again, Carbon dating has nothing to do about the age of earth.

So I'd advise you not talk about Carbon dating when age of earth or million of years is implied.


I gave few reasons why other forms of radiometric dating cannot be trusted and since Carbon dating gives age that's still beyond the Biblical Chronology, there are evidence which points that such "ages" flunctuate also apart from the factthat it also relies on some unfounded assumptions.

By the way;
I'm a lover of God and lover of the field of studies which tries to understand how he sustain and uphold the universe science)

Pelecius:

I was thinking in such direction with your initial questions but it was not just clear (worded clearly)

If you've read my comments in this thread, you should see that you don't need to ask me such questions as I definitely showed why the secular dating should not be taken really seriously.

Just some points;
1.Million year old fossils are not carbon dated. So it's not about carbon dating here, it's other forms such as Ur - Pb, K - Ar, etc.

2.Again, Carbon dating has nothing to do about the age of earth.

So I'd advise you not talk about Carbon dating when age of earth or million of years is implied.


I gave few reasons why other forms of radiometric dating cannot be trusted and since Carbon dating gives age that's still beyond the Biblical Chronology, there are evidence which points that such "ages" flunctuate also apart from the factthat it also relies on some unfounded assumptions.

By the way;
I'm a lover of God and lover of the field of studies which tries to understand how he sustain and uphold the universe science)

Clarification accepted. Let do some scholarly talk.

According to the article
Fossils of this snake family did not appear again until the geological time period known as the Miocene – between 23 and 5 million years ago.

'As the global climate began to cool again after the Miocene, the pythons once again disappeared fromEurope, said Dr Smith

Secondly, from the inference i believed you were using dating (i.e carbon or any form ) to explain this defined age.

Can be kindly explain how they got the age.
Thanks in advance

cc macsjebs

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/13536891/mummified-wolf-pup-fur-teeth-canada/

Zimri:
cc macsjebs

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/13536891/mummified-wolf-pup-fur-teeth-canada/

Boss of Life
Compliments of the season Sir
Thanks a lot Boss

Macsjebs:

Boss of Life
Compliments of the season Sir
Thanks a lot Boss

Seasons greetings! ✨✨✨

Koolyarn:


Clarification accepted. Let do some scholarly talk.

According to the article
Fossils of this snake family did not appear again until the geological time period known as the Miocene – between 23 and 5 million years ago.

'As the global climate began to cool again after the Miocene, the pythons once again disappeared fromEurope, said Dr Smith

Secondly, from the inference i believed you were using dating (i.e carbon or any form ) to explain this defined age.

Can be kindly explain how they got the age.
Thanks in advance

I have a feeling that you were not supposed to quote me since I also don't go with millions of years age.

But as explained by etrange already, they either use relative dating method or use decay rate (assuming that it has been constant) to measure concentration of daughter isotopes remaining from a radioactive material in which the fossil is formed; or combination of the two.
For the former, it is assumed that the geologic column was formed over millions of years at a constant rate (another assumption - uniformitarianism). So the different layers are named and ages assigned to them. Hence, it is easy to assign age to any fossil found any of the layers.

Remix10:



Radiography was used, carbon dating to be precised, it can tell the age of ancient fossils

Carbon dating is not used when it is believed that the strata in which the fossil is found was formed millions of years ago.

IMAliyu:

Well, according to young earth creationists, based on some literal interpretations of the Bible. the world is only around 10,000-6,000 years old.

The geological and scientific consensus is that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

This age of the earth represent the age of the Earth's core formation, or of the material from which the Earth formed. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material, which is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Great response there but your conclusions favour the long agers and I think you committed question begging epithet. Making it look like the young earthers don't have evidence to support their world view apart from the Bible and differentiating Creationist from the "geological and scientific consensus".
Thus, you didn't fairly give the enquirer (Bahamas95) the opportunity to think for himself since your conclusion and question begging epithet has done that for him.

Anyway, I always enjoy your comments

keppler:

Great response there but your conclusions favour the long agers and I think you committed question begging epithet. Making it look like the young earthers don't have evidence to support their world view apart from the Bible and differentiating Creationist from the "geological and scientific consensus".
Thus, you didn't fairly give the enquirer (Bahamas95) the opportunity to think for himself since your conclusion and question begging epithet has done that for him.

Anyway, I always enjoy your comments

Didn't intend it to be like that.

But my knowledge of the young earth view isn't that deep, so I kept it short to only what I knew (at the time of reply).

As for personal beliefs, I do in fact have a bias to the secular scientific approach.

As for the young earth hypothesis, it is highly predicated on the idea that the Bible possesses literal/factual accounts of history and prehistory. Which is subjective and debatable depending on a person's religious inclination.

IMAliyu:

Didn't intend it to be like that.

But my knowledge of the young earth view isn't that deep, so I kept it short to only what I knew (at the time of reply).

As for personal beliefs, I do in fact have a bias to the secular scientific approach.

As for the young earth hypothesis, it is highly predicated on the idea that the Bible possesses literal/factual accounts of history and prehistory. Which is subjective and debatable depending on a person's religious inclination.

Alright Bro

Yeah, I guess. That's why I felt that it could have been made in such a way to make the enquirer want to know the evidence for both sides of the camp.

I love the word "secular" because it is assumed by many that science is neutral but facts don't interpret themselves; rather, through the scientist's worldview such as humanism, Christianity, Materialism etc.

Yeah, that's their assumption. Like I said, every scientist have a frame work which is presumed to be through first and hypothesis are worked around such frame work. Their are many young earth websites you can check to see the evidence put forward which matches their frame work, it may help you to get acquainted with the model