otseng wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:05 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:32 am
C14 dating has has its' ups and downs. Coal is particularly open to substance contamination, leading to misleading dates. If science throws up its' hands and says 'we can't rely on it for any dates, even broad ones' I'd have to accept that, but it isn't anywhere near there, especially with other dating methods as a check.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying we can
rely on the dating of C14. It's like the table has turned in which you stated:
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:55 am
Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not.
I accept the dating. But, you do not
accept the dating of C14 in fossil fuels. But, rather reject the dating because it conflicts with the assumption of deep time. And in order to make it fit deep time, ad hoc explanations are added.
And your effort to use 'ad hoc' explanations as to why particular coal deposits may have given wrong dates
I'm not the one using ad hoc explanations.
which only means they are hypothetical possibilities to be researched, does not in any way justify your claim that without these particular suggestion for ONE problem, you want to throw all the dating in the bin by craftily suggesting that ad hoc for one particular problem implies ad hoc for everything.
C14 in fossil fuels is not the only evidence of a young earth.
Another evidence is soft tissue remains in dinosaur fossils.
A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.
"Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone."
Does it even make sense for something 70-million years old
to have soft tissue remains? I have things in my kitchen that have hardened solid just after a few years.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 2:43 am
it looked like a picture of classic period temples (250 -1200 AD,) which wouldn't help your case. Again, what ziggurat or pyramid -like structures do the (preclassic) Maya have at this 1,000 BC date of yours?
My point about ziggurats around the world is not to present a detailed chronological explanation of how it spread all around the globe (which I doubt anyone could do). But I'm simply presenting a data point where disparate cultures share a common similarity. The question is why would there be similarities? Either it was from a common source or they evolved independently.
Ok so we can (broadly, I have to add) rely on C 14 dating but how it 'turns the tables' I do not get. If C14 did (which isn't altogether the case) disagree with all the other dates of 'Deep Time' then the implication would be that, for some reason, C14 dates in coal were turning up wrong. I'll have a look at that.
You are actually using the ad hoc explanation.
You are using the hypothetical explanation of the wrong dates the scientists put forward (which you call ad hoc
and you have a case a they are off the cuff suggestions) as reasons to reject the fossil fuel C14 dates, Also it is the dates you use to dismiss deep time geological dates and use 'ad hoc' to dismiss the explanations. You need to think that all through again.
Oh dear. The T Rex 'soft tissue' nonsense. I understand that the soft tissue itself has been fossilised. I'll have a look but I don't think the organic tissue has been preserved as such so it won't be datable by C14. You have to bear in mind that organic material is limited not by what dates C14 can give but how likely organic material is going to survive. I'll have a look at that.
What else.. Your cheese going inedible after a month is nothing like the fossilisation process where the cheese gets buried in mud and after 500 k or a million years the cheese decays and is replaces by minerals seeping in the plaster cast it leaves and effectively you get a replica of the cheese in stone. You can't date it but you can tel it was cheese and the date of the rocks in which the fossil cheese was preserved. Which is as long as the rocks last.
Creationists persistently fail to understand either fossilisation or the C14 process.
Finally, the ziggurats, pyramids. Independent origins of temples and pyramids is more likely than a common source. My mention of Chavin de Huantar shows that even when on the coast they didn't have pottery yet (the Sumerians and Egyptians had it long before) up in the Andes the Chavin of 3,000 BC were building a stone temple complex unlike either ziggurats or Pyramids. The pre Maya on the West were building platforms as precursors of the Temples. These became more ziggurat - like as they were developed in the pre -classic period. Just as in Egypt the evidence suggests they worked it out for themselves and it was not brought from either Mesopotamia or Egypt.