Posted on 06/20/2013 6:51:51 AM PDT by fishtank
Really. That all ya got??":
Tiktaalik roseae, better known as the "fishapod," is a 375 million year old fossil fish which was discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004. Its discovery sheds light on a pivotal point in the history of life on Earth: when the very first fish ventured out onto land.
It "sheds" light on "pivotal point," claimed to be the "very first fish" to try out its new legs? Nice try:
http://creationwiki.org/Tiktaalik
It's yet another extinct creature that's arbitrarily aged at "375 million years old" which was created EXACTLY that way unknown thousands of years ago. You're better off making your desperate case of evolution by citing the current Platypus. It obviously evolved from a duck (or is it the other way around?)
This is sociopathic to me - no sense of what is truth and what is fabrication, no standards that apply equally to both sides, no conscience.
Of WHICH "methods" do you refer?
You apparently have no shame or sense of ethics or in the statements you make - the end us justifying the means.
Open your vault and go ahead and support YOUR "approved" dating methodology, Geraldo.
The same ones you claim worked better "after the flood".
I understand that's not going to be an acceptable answer, and there's going to have to be something wrong with me for questioning it in the first place.
If you believe that thousands of scientists in dozens of different fields have all gotten together to lie about how old things are, then you'll be able to wave away anything you don't like. As you appear to be willing to do.
Yes, the term "37 extant species of cats" is posted all over the interwebs.
Really? I looked up a list of cat species, counted them, and wrote the phrase myself.
Standard evolutionary theory does not propose an organism giving birth to something of a different species. You are wrestling with a cartoon version of evolution.
http://creationwiki.org/Tiktaalik
Adding words like "assumed," "arbitrarily," "supposed," and so on does not make an argument. What exactly is your criticism of the process? They had fossils found in rocks of one age that showed fish with paired fins. They had fossils from rocks of later age that showed tracks of four-limbed animals. Somewhere in between, they hypothesized, must be a fish with more limblike paired fins. And that's what they found, where they expected to find it. (Note that they never said it wasn't a fish, despite creationwiki's implication that that's a big gotcha.) Do you have a specific problem with any of that, or does it all just get a big "Nuh-uh!" because it challenges your beliefs?
okay, smarty put up or shut up, where is your example of a species changing into another?? living or in fossil record.
(the horse has been debunked already)
"As I said above, find the dog with both forms of the size gene...."
as far as I know no one has mapped the genome of the dog. so you are knowingly asking for the impossible to prove a point. But it proves nothing..
In June of 1990, Hugh Miller submitted two dinosaur bone fragments to the Department of Geosciences at the University in Tucson, Arizona for carbon-14 analysis. One fragment was from an unidentified dinosaur. The other was from an Allosaurus excavated by James Hall near Grand Junction, Colorado in 1989. Miller submitted the samples without disclosing the identity of the bones. (Had the scientists known the samples actually were from dinosaurs, they would not have bothered dating them, since it is assumed dinosaurs lived millions of years ago—outside the limits of radiocarbon dating.) Interestingly, the C-14 analysis indicated that the bones were from 10,000-16,000 years old—a far cry from their alleged 60-million-year-old age (see Dahmer, et al., 1990, pp. 371-374). Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. (1990), “Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship).
April Fools—and Missing Links
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Lived in water? Check. Possessed well developed gill arches and a gill chamber? Check. Possessed small pectoral fins and fin rays instead of limbs? Check. Covered in overlapping tuberculated scales? Check. The “missing link” fish that crawled out of water? Not even close. Given the amount of press this newly discovered creature has received, I was anxious to read what was actually discovered. I had heard all of the reports of how this “tetra-pod” or “fish-o-pod” was the missing link. I received countless e-mails from individuals who shared news accounts proclaiming this creature filled in the gap between fish and land-dwelling creatures. However, after all of the evolutionary propaganda was whittled away, an unbiased reader was left with little more than the fossils of a new unique creature that lived in the water.
Deemed Tiktaalik roseae [NOTE: Tiktaalik is derived from Inukitut, the traditional language in Nunavut where the fossils were discovered. Roseae honors a benefactor of Devoian paleontology], this creature is represented by several fossilized specimens that were discovered in the Nunavut Territory of Canada (Daeschler, et al., 2006, 440:757). The authors of the study make no hesitation in declaring that they have found a missing link between fish and land-dwelling creatures. They begin their scientific report noting:
The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes. Here we report the discovery of a well-preserved species of fossil sarcopterygian fish from the Late Devonian of Arctic Canada that represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose (Daeschler, et al., 440:757, parenthetical items in orig.).
That type of speculation and propaganda might be acceptable or even expected from the popular press, but not from a scientific journal where researchers should not delve into the realm of imagination or guesswork. Given the timing of the article and the news releases from the popular media, it is obvious that the announcement of this creature was a staged event—with the media having images and charts ready for publication long before the original scientific article was released. They wanted everyone to know that “the missing link” was no longer missing. The bold assertions made by the authors helped create media frenzy around this new creature with headlines declaring: “IT WAS one of the most important events of the last 400 million years: the moment our fishy ancestors began hauling themselves onto dry land. Now a fossil from the very beginning of that crucial transition has been found in the remote Arctic” (Holmes, 2006, emp. in orig.) The account in National Geographic quoted Neil Shubin, one of the authors of the study, proclaiming: “This animal represents the transition from water to land—the part of history that includes ourselves” (Owen, 2006). John Wilford, staff writer for The New York Times observed: “In an interview, Dr. Shubin, an evolutionary biologist, let himself go. ‘It’s a really amazing, remarkable intermediate fossil,’ he said. ‘It’s like, holy cow’” (2006). Wilford’s article also quoted H. Richard Lane, director of paleobiology at the National Science Foundation. Lane noted: “These exciting discoveries are providing fossil ‘Rosetta Stones’ for a deeper understanding of this evolutionary milestone—fish to land-roaming tetrapods” (as quoted in Wilford, 2006). The New York Times account also confronted the controversy between creation and evolution, noting: “Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin’s theory” (Wilford, 2006, emp. added). Powerful rebuttal to religious creationists? How about smoke and mirrors with the media promoting this anti-God propaganda?
What Did They Really Find?
The authors summarize their discovery of Tiktaalik in the following manner: “Overall, the skeleton of Tiktaalik is that of a flat-bodied animal with raised and dorsally placed eyes, a mobile neck, imbricate ribs, and a pectoral girdle and forefin capable of complex movements and substrate support” (Daeschler, et al., 2006, 440:762). Simply put, these researchers found some fossilized remains of a unique aquatic fish that we had not yet discovered. Once you get beyond those facts, we find ourselves firmly embedded in the land of speculation. As Ahlberg and Clack admitted: “In some respects, Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic” (440:748, emp. added). But what about this fin that Shubin makes such a big deal about? Ahlberg and Clack remarked: “It turns out that the distal part of the skeleton is adapted for flexing gently upwards—just as it would be if the fin were being used to prop the animal up” (440:748). Further: “Although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin (440:748, emp. added).
So let me get this straight. It possesses characteristics that are very much like a fish, and yet all of the media outlets act like this creature was out walking on the land?! Before just blindly accepting the headlines presented in the media one should ask just what can we learn from a fossil dug out of the ground. Without a living specimen, can scientists know how a creature lived in the environment? Can we know the diet or the movements of the creature? Without preserved soft-tissue, can we determine what the internal organs looked like? The answer to all of these questions (and more) is a resounding “no.” Fossilized remains can only tell us so much about a creature. Once we go beyond what the physical evidence reveals, we begin seeing phrases such as “it is possible,” “it probably happened this way,” “many have suggested,” “could very well have,” or “we believe.” All of which are subjective speculation on the author’s part.
One interesting point that readers should consider as they contemplate this latest “missing link” is that the team who reported this find specifically set out to find a missing link. Ahlberg and Clack reported: “The Nunavut field project had the express aim of finding an intermediate between Panderichthys and tetrapods, by searching in sediments from the most probable environment (rivers) and time (late Devonian)” (2006, 440:747). Why did these scientists set out to discover a missing link? Maybe it had something to do with the statement from Daeschler’s team that the “origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes” (440:757). Maybe because there was such a huge gap in the evolutionary fossil record in getting creatures onto the land. Or maybe it was because evolutionists realized just how many holes had been poked into their beloved theory in the past few years—necessitating a major shoring up.
As expected, scientists have tried to bridge this gap from water-to-land in the past. Many may recall reading through textbooks about previous “missing links” such as the coelacanth. For instance, one biology textbook has a beautiful picture of this amazing creature with the following caption:
The living coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae. Discovered in the western Indian Ocean in 1938, this coelacanth represents a group of fishes that had been thought to be extinct for about 70 million years. Scientists who studied living individuals in their natural habitat at depths of 100 to 200 meters observed them drifting in the current and hunting other fishes at night. Some individuals are nearly 3 meters long; they have a slender, fat-filled swim bladder. Although Latimeria is a very strange animal, its features mark it as a member of the evolutionary line that gave rise to the terrestrial tetrapods” (Raven and Johnson, 1989, p. 857, emp. added).
It seemed a good fit at the time. The funny looking creature with lobed front fins appeared to be the perfect candidate for evolutionists’ transitional creature. However, when live ones were found living below the 18 degree isotherm, the truth came out. Given the embarrassing position evolutionists found themselves in when it was discovered that coelacanths were deep water fish, one would think scientists would be more cautious in speculating about the shallow-water environment of the Tiktaalik. History has shown that the coelacanth was not the “missing link” that gave rise to tetrapods. The next delegate was the lungfish. Henner Brinkman and his colleagues summed up their research noting: “These data strongly support the hypothesis that the lungfishes and not the coelacanth are the closest relatives of the land vertebrates. This result emphasizes the importance of study of all aspects of the biology and genomics of extinct and extant lungfish; our closest ‘fish’ relatives” (2004, 101:4904, emp. added).
Well, goodbye lungfish, hello Tiktaalik. So, now we watch as scientists rejoice and speculate over the latest “missing link.” One can only wonder how long it will take before evolutionists are forced to go “back to the drawing board” as they redraw their beloved evolutionary tree of life with yet another alleged fish-to-land missing link. In his article rebutting the Tiktaalik, creationist Jonathon Witt quoted Henry Gee, previous editor of Nature (the journal in which this story was originally reported). Gee correctly observed: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific” (as quoted in Witt, 2006). Sadly, textbooks will begin featuring the Tiktaalik as that animal that dragged us out onto the land. Forget the fact that there is not one shred of scientific proof that this actually occurred. And forget the fact that twenty years from now they’ll likely have to change it to some other creature. The important thing to remember is that evolutionists have everything under control, and they have an answer for everything. Maybe that’s why this discovery was reported the week of April Fool’s Day.
REFERENCES
Ahlberg, Per Erik, and Jennifer A. Clack (2006), “A Firm Step From Water to Land,” Nature, 440:747-749, April 6.
Brinkmann, Henner, Byrappa Venkatesh, Sydney Brenner, and Axel Meyer (2004), “Nuclear Protein-Coding Genes Support Lungfish and not the Coelacanth as the Closest Living Relatives of Land Vertebrates,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 101[14]:4900-4905, April 6.
Daeschler, Edward B., Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. (2006), “A Devonian Tetrapod-Like Fish and the Evolution of the Tetrapod Body Plan,” Nature, 440:757-763, April 6.
Holmes, Bob (2006), “First Fossil of Fish that Crawled onto Land Discovered,” New Scientist, [On-line], URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600-first-fossil-of-fish-that- crawled-onto-land-discovered.html.
Owen, James (2006), “Fossil Fish with ‘Limbs’ is Missing Link, Study Says,” National Geographic News, [On-line], URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html.
Raven, Peter H. and George B. Johnson (1989), Biology (St. Louis, MO: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing), second edition.
Wilford, John Noble (2006), “Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&; en=3a609957702713ff&ex=1145764800.
Witt, Jonathan (2006), “Tiktaalik as Missing Link: A New Icon of Evolution?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/tiktaalik_as_missing_link_a_ne.html.
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Eric Lyons, has state:,
(1) In an attempt to explain away “human-like footprints” embedded in 250-million-year-old coal veins in Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, Albert G. Ingalls (the state geologist of Kentucky) could muster only the following explanation.
If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even the ape ancestor’s early mammal ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous period with his feet (1940, 162:14, emp. added; see also, Wilder-Smith, 1970, p. 300).
Evolutionary scientists still are rejecting the “attractive explanation”—i.e., the obvious fact—that these prints are human footprints.
(2) In attempting to explain away how two trilobites were found fossilized inside of a human sandal print in Antelope Springs, Utah, in 1968, evolutionists have asserted that the print is merely a spall (cracking or chipping) pattern in the rock (see Conrad, 1981, 4:30-33). They do not question the authenticity of the trilobite fossils, yet they reject the interpretation that these trilobites are found inside a human sandal print. One wonders what kind of explanation they have for the stitching that is visible along the edges of the sandal print?
(3) During the summer of 2004, while I was visiting the Natural Bridges National Monument in southeast Utah, I asked one of the staff members at the visitor’s center how scientists explain the presence of an antiquated dinosaur petroglyph at the base of Kachina Bridge. Her response: “They don’t really want to explain it.” Truth be told, if I were an evolutionist, I would not want to explain it either. This piece of evidence blatantly contradicts their timetable. According to the theory of evolution, humans never lived with dinosaurs. But if humans never saw living dinosaurs, how did the Anasazis, who inhabited southeastern Utah long before dinosaur fossils were found in modern times, carve such an accurate picture of a dinosaur onto the side of a rock wall?
If the responses by evolutionists to the mountain of evidence that points toward the Creation model were not so pitiful and potentially soul damaging, they would be somewhat comical. To think that some men and women who call themselves “scientists” actually reject facts of science in order to embrace the evolutionary theory is revolting. May humanity recognize that God has left testimony of His work in Creation all around us (cf. Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20).
“Know that the Lord, He is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves” (Psalm 100:3).
“Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:8-9).
No evolutionists will ever be able to explain away these truths!
REFERENCES
Conrad, Ernest C. (1981), “Tripping Over a Trilobite: A Study of the Meister Tracks,” Creation/Evolution, 4:30-33.
Ingalls, Albert G. (1940), “The Carboniferous Mystery,” Scientific American, 162:14, January.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1970), Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers).
on dating:
Scores of textbooks have described the event as though historians recorded it with pinpoint accuracy. Supposedly, there was a land bridge that connected Asia and North America 10,000 to 15,000 years ago across the Bering Strait. This land bridge allowed humans to migrate into the Americas—or so the textbooks claim. But now a new discovery calls that piece of “history” into question. Further analysis of this discovery has researchers pitting dating methods against fossils, as they try to grasp exactly what to interpret from the data.
The controversy stems from ancient footprints discovered by English researchers in volcanic ash outside the Mexican city of Puebla. According to Rex Dalton:
The team first stumbled on the prints in the summer of 2003 while hiking between archaeological sites near the dried bed of Valsequillo Lake. They found an ash field peppered with more than 200 impressions that seem to be footprints from several people, including children, along with birds, cats, dogs and species with cloven feet. Gonzalez thinks they might have been fleeing an eruption from the nearby Cerro Toluquilla volcano (2005).
The first part of the controversy centers on the fact that the foot impressions were allegedly dated to about 40,000 years ago. This figure was obtained by Thomas Higham from the University of Oxford, UK, who used radiocarbon dating of the shells identified in sediments just above the layer of ash. This age, however, predates the alleged timeline of the ice age, and thus has people walking in America before they supposedly walked over the land bridge! The team from England touted the footprints “as definitive proof that humans were in the Americas much earlier than 11,000 year ago, which is the accepted date for the arrival of humans across a northern land-bridge from Asia” (Sanders, 2005).
Just to be sure that the assigned date was not some mistake or caused by some foreign artifact, the researchers proceeded to date materials below the footprint layer, the footprint layer itself, and then on top of the footprint layer. These scientists, led by geologist Silvia Gonzalez, knew their study would be extremely controversial. Gonzalez told the BBC News Web site, “It’s going to be an archaeological bomb, and we’re up for a fight” (Rincon, 2005). Bomb indeed! Consider how long textbooks have been teaching children that man arrived in the Americas by the Bering Strait land bridge. One of the team members, Matthew Bennett of Bournemouth, was quoted on a Royal Society Web site as saying: “Accounting for the origin of these footprints would require a complete rethink on the timing, route and origin of the first colonization of the Americas” (as quoted in Sanders, 2005).
Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, was skeptical of the ancient footprints, and decided to conduct his own study with an investigative team of geologists and anthropologists. Renne’s results definitely differed from the team from England, but not in the way expected. Reporting on Renne’s study, Robert Sanders observed: “Alleged footprints of early Americans found in volcanic rock in Mexico are either extremely old—more than 1 million years older than other evidence of human presence in the Western Hemisphere—or not footprints at all” (2005). The new age that Renne and his team assigned the impressions was 1.3 million years using 40argon/39argon dating! Modern human footprints at 1.3 million years old!? This would have modern humans walking around the Americas a million years before the famed evolutionary “out-of-Africa” scenario occurred.
In discussing the data, Renne remarked: “You’re really only left with two possibilities. One is that they are really old hominds—shockingly old—or they’re not footprints” (Sanders, 2005). In their brief communication in Nature, Paul Renne, et al., observed:
If the markings on the exposed surface of the tuff are human footprints recorded soon after its eruption, the obvious implication is that they are 1.3 million years old. This would be truly extraordinary as such antiquity predates even the most speculative credible inferences about the first known appearance of Homo sapiens in the western hemisphere by more than a million years. Indeed, the Xalnene tuff [Mexico volcanic samples—BH] pre-dates the first known appearance of H. sapiens (in Africa) by more than a million years. If the markings are hominid footprints, they would be most likely to have been made by a hominid that existed before H. sapiens, and we consider such a possibility to be extremely remote (2005, p. E8, parenthetical item in orig.).
The proverbial rock and hard place comes to mind in this instance. If scientists accept Gonzalez’s interpretation, then American history will have to be rewritten and it will be back to the drawing board as to how man arrived in America. If Renne’s team is correct, then modern man walked in America before Africa—something few evolutionists want to consider. Do we place our trust in radiocarbon dating or radiometric dating? After all, obviously both cannot be correct in this instance.
Rather than call either into question, Renne offers another solution. Chalk the fossil impressions up as erroneous—not footprints. When something threatens the beloved evolutionary theory and questions history as we have concocted it, then discount the data. Renne’s “solution” is simply that these are not footprints. After all, they couldn’t be! Sounds an awful lot like what happened with the famous Laetoli footprints. The fossil evidence and the dates simply could not be correct. There is, however, a third alternative—one that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. What if we called our dating methods into question? Isn’t it time we trust the fossils and investigate radiometric dating methods and assumptions? Is it possible that all this time we’ve been assigning ancient dates to artifacts and fossils when, in reality, those dating methods are inaccurate? If scientists are predisposed to evaluate everything with an evolutionary mindset, this solution will never even be considered.
REFERENCES
Dalton, Rex (2005), “Ancient ‘Footprints’ Found in Mexico,” Nature, [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/050704-4.html.
Renne, Paul R., Joshua M. Feinberg, et al., (2005), “Age of Mexican Ash with Alleged ‘Footprints,’” Nature, 438:E7, December 1.
Rincon, Paul (2005), “Footprints of ‘First Americans,’” BBC News, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4650307.stm.
Sanders, Robert (2005), “Alleged 40,000-Year-Old Human Footprints in Mexico Much, Much Older than Thought,” EurekaAlert, [On-line], URL: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/uoc—a4h112805.php.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D. © 2005 Apologetics Press,
C-14 is atmospheric, and carried by any living organism, including microbes or residue left by handling the sample. Once unearthed a sample is immedialty succeptible to contamination. Any sample more that about 100,000 years old will not have any mearsurable C14 left in it, and you will instead be measuring the C14 that has contaminated the sample since it was exposed. For these reasons C14 dating is potentially unreliable. This is well known and documented.
When you tell people about Hugh Millers experiment, do you also tell them this?
In 2011 researchers recorded neutrinos travelling faster than light.
...For these reasons C14 dating is potentially unreliable. This is well known and documented. ..”
all radio-dating is fallible and prone to contamination (ALL). that is why it is unreliable.
It is a Fact, no two samples will give the result...unless , yes you test them 100 times and PICK the results.
It is dishonest!!!
and that is how it is done.
and the article illustrates the bias when testing samples.
It is insanity to belive that they are all contaminated with exactly the right amount of all of those elements.
That the article and it's presentation illustrates bias is not in question. Who's bias is being illustated apparently is.
The Assumptions of Carbon Dating
Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on at least two simple assumptions. These are, obviously, the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant and that its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950s. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.
In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column, the radiometric date will be rejected. The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800s over a century before there were any radio- metric dating methods. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”1 Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object’s supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.2
The Wild Dates of Carbon Dating
A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:
•Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old.
•Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old.
•A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago.
•“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.”
•“Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”
•Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old.
.Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983)
.Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211
.Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30
.J. E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism vs. Material- ism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January,1976), p. 54
Dr. Kent Hovind,Creation Today
Those not considered contaminated....?
Gregory Brennecka of Arizona State University and colleagues measured the relative amounts of Uranium 238 to Uranium 235 from several samples taken from the large Allende meteorite, named for the village in Mexico near where it landed in 1969. With the more sensitive instrument, they detected small differences in isotope ratios from different inclusions within the same meteorite.1 Isotopes are versions of an element with differing nuclear components. The full technical report appeared in the January 22, 2010, issue of the journal Science.
The differing amounts of material that were found in separate samplings of the same meteorite were unexpected. The current standard age assigned to the solar system of 4.6 billion years was determined by studying the Uranium-to-Lead decay systems in meteorites, which are assumed to have formed before the planets did. This age was based on the belief that the rate of decay has been constant, and that Uranium 238 will be present in a known ratio to Uranium 235. The varying quantities of these isotopes call into question the calculated age of the solar system, since “one of the equation’s assumptions — that certain kinds of uranium always appear in the same relative quantities in meteorites — is wrong.”
“This variation implies substantial uncertainties in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb [lead-lead] dating of CAIs,” Brennecka stated in an ASU press release.3 CAIs are “calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions” found in the meteorite. Though the measurements of these elements are very precise, the assumptions upon which their usefulness as a clock rests are questionable at best. In a Wired Science article on Brennecka’s findings, Gerald Wasserburg, emeritus professor of geology at Caltech, commented, “Everybody was sitting on this two-legged stool claiming it was very stable, but it turns out it’s not.”
Grossman, L. Age of Solar System Needs to Be Recalculated. Wired Science. Posted on wired.com January 4, 2010, accessed January 12, 2010.
Brian Thomas, Institute for Creation Research, January 21, 2010
Kyle Butte noted that; Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).
Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010). Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.
Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.
Stober, David (2010), “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements,” http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/.
Kyle Butt,2010 Apologetics Press
Or will you tell me that doesn;'t matter?
“...measured results that have differences of orders of magnitude, or fractions of a percent?
Or will you tell me that doesn;’t matter?
..”
what did the quotes from evolutionary scientist conclude?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.