[_ Old Earth _] Science

[Corn Pop]

If someone carved a pot out of 200 million year old clay, would science then analize that pot and say its 200 million years old based on the material?.

You see, I dont get how they can date an item when the material maybe much older than when it was made.

Its like if something was carved 2000 years ago out of 500,000 year old dirt, would they say it was a ancient civilisation 500,000 years ago type thing, based only on the material, because there is nothing else to go from, just the material right?.

 

[Sinthesis]

Where something is found can also play a part in how it is dated.

 

[Edward]

Good question Dan. It made me think of another one...

Isn't all the clay already as old as the world? Aren't all the rocks the same age too?

 

[Barbarian]

If someone carved a pot out of 200 million year old clay, would science then analize that pot and say its 200 million years old based on the material?.

We might, depending on the clay, be able to say when it was fired. In general, dating rocks depends on when the rock was last solidified from magma or lava. Clay is tiny particles of ancient rock that were weathered or eroded away. So clay would, if it was pure, from one rock, only tell you when the rock from which it eroded was solidified.

When it melts again, the clock gets reset.

You see, I dont get how they can date an item when the material maybe much older than when it was made.

They can only tell when the rock was last solidified from melted rock.

 

[Mike S]

If someone carved a pot out of 200 million year old clay, would science then analize that pot and say its 200 million years old based on the material?.

You see, I dont get how they can date an item when the material maybe much older than when it was made.

Its like if something was carved 2000 years ago out of 500,000 year old dirt, would they say it was a ancient civilisation 500,000 years ago type thing, based only on the material, because there is nothing else to go from, just the material right?.

The style of the pottery also is important in dating. When archaeologists working at a dig go down layer after layer, they see a distinct change in the style of the pottery. Someone would have a difficult time fooling archaeologists by trying to mimic an ancient style.

 

[Milk-Drops]

If someone carved a pot out of 200 million year old clay, would science then analize that pot and say its 200 million years old based on the material?.

You see, I dont get how they can date an item when the material maybe much older than when it was made.

Its like if something was carved 2000 years ago out of 500,000 year old dirt, would they say it was a ancient civilisation 500,000 years ago type thing, based only on the material, because there is nothing else to go from, just the material right?.

Barbarian pointed out some good information, but I'd also like to add that when materials are dated it would show that the clay was 200 million years old, but the process of how the pots or materials were fashioned also dates the pots or materials to their use.

For example, if archaeologists found ruins of an ancient city the materials in the city would have various ages, but if remains from living organisms are found then those remains could be dated for a range of death. Techniques used in that city could be looked at and compared with historical use. If any of the items show detailed workmanship, they can be tested to see when they were made.

It doesn't give an exact date, but it gives a rough estiment.

When things are found in rock layers, the layers are tested because that gives a rough idea of when that layer formed. This is because in chemistry there is a theory about radioactive decay rates. Using these methods scientists can track down the range of when a rock layer or organism was laid down or died.

 

[brother Paul]

And yet a bone which cannot be dated if found in an area geologically dated to say 1,000,000 years is considered to be 1,000,000 years old (but I could have buried it there a few years ago or it could be from a later or earlier date but moved there by an allocthonous process or via some seismic event...)

 

[Milk-Drops]

And yet a bone which cannot be dated if found in an area geologically dated to say 1,000,000 years is considered to be 1,000,000 years old (but I could have buried it there a few years ago or it could be from a later or earlier date but moved there by an allocthonous process or via some seismic event...)

Do you have an event you are specifically talking about or are you just doing a thought experiment?

 

[brother Paul]

No! It was a "thought experiment" as you call it, but similar to the Piltdown Hoax (planted but not revealed until years later) and possibly the conclusions regarding some of the evidence found at the Olduvai Gorge...when fossils or artifacts themselves cannot be dated they usually are automatically associated with the surrounding geology as you yourself pointed out.

 

[Milk-Drops]

No! It was a "thought experiment" as you call it, but similar to the Piltdown Hoax (planted but not revealed until years later)

Its not similar to Pltdown at all. Piltdown was just a hoax that no one could figure out who perpetrated, and was only excepted by a small group. It was removed from display when no one could figure out where it fix in the timeline. When it was examined with modern methods it was found to be an obvious fake. That is highly different from dating rocks and materials. You are grasping at straws.

and possibly the conclusions regarding some of the evidence found at the Olduvai Gorge...when fossils or artifacts themselves cannot be dated they usually are automatically associated with the surrounding geology as you yourself pointed out.

Do you want me to explain to the thread what Leakey found, or do you want to? I thought you were a scientist Paul? Care to share your stance on the findings and explain what you are getting at?

 

[brother Paul]

Good save....here is your original post and my unposted response

You mean the incident where a disgraced scientists found an extinct pig's tooth and claimed it as an american human ancestor? Yet no scientist actually believed it, and the finder had to resort to going to a magazine to claim he found something. Then when actual scientist examined the tooth and found it to not be human, the finder redacted. Wow, what a hoax, I thought hoaxes required authorities behind them and not just a magazine who got fooled by delusional git.

No not at all. I was very specific. What I said had nothing to do with Nebraska Man…Piltdown was actually accepted by many (not a few) and raved as a missing link before being exposed….and I agree it is usually other scientists who expose the hoaxters (just like those who exposed Dubois)….

Do you want me to explain to the thread what Leakey found, or do you want me to? Thought you were a scientist Paul? Care to share your stance on the findings and explain what you are getting at?

Let’s see? Do I want you to or do I want you to? No thanks…!!!! The Leakys made some great finds but some of their conclusions were hypothesis based OPINION and nothing more and sure if you would like I will give you an example but I have to go now and will return after I help the local food pantry saint (Aida) and enter an example.

So pardon me for having to go but I will address the corrected post later....

 

[Milk-Drops]

Good save....here is your original post and my unposted response

You are aware you are openly admitting to both trolling and spamming since you are responding to a post that no longer exists and reposting it after its been deleted, right?

Piltdown was actually accepted by many (not a few) and raved as a missing link before being exposed…

It was so accepted that it got pulled shortly after its unveiling and went into storage. Get your story straight.

The Leakys made some great finds but some of their conclusions were hypothesis based OPINION and nothing more and sure if you would like I will give you an example but I have to go now and will return after I help the local food pantry saint (Aida) and enter an example.

Feel free to give me some examples. I think its hilarious that you took time out of feeding people to reproduce my old post before I corrected it. Shows me your priorities. Feeding people comes second to trolling on the net I guess.

 

[Edward]

...
When things are found in rock layers, the layers are tested because that gives a rough idea of when that layer formed. This is because in chemistry there is a theory about radioactive decay rates. Using these methods scientists can track down the range of when a rock layer or organism was laid down or died.

Now I'm not a scientist, but do you know anything about radio polonium halos? I watched a video which claimed that radio polonium halos dissipate within a minute or so after contact with air. It's found in granite, and when they break open the granite rock, the halos can be seen under a microscope for a brief time.

The geological theory holds that granite got pushed up from the earths core in a molten state and dried/hardened over millions of years...

Now if that were so, then the granite should not have any radio polonium halos in it...but it's there. Conclusion; the granite cooled and hardened almost instantaneously, thereby sealing the rock...and the RPH inside. This finding supports the YE position.

Finding RPH in granite doesn't date the earth, but does support creationism.

 

[brother Paul]

Its not similar to Pltdown at all. Piltdown was just a hoax that no one could figure out who perpetrated, and was only excepted by a small group. It was removed from display when no one could figure out where it fix in the timeline. When it was examined with modern methods it was found to be an obvious fake. That is highly different from dating rocks and materials. You are grasping at straws.

Clearly you are somewhat misinformed or else you yourself are trying to fool us. Piltdown man was accepted! For nearly 40 years it was a feature as a missing link in many Public School and College textbooks (see Alien L. Hammond, 'Tales of an Elusive Ancestor’, Science , November 1983 for one example of this testimony). The specimen was not defrocked publicly until 1953…but as with all frauds (like Java Man) objective scientists always contained those who were skeptical. It was just sad that so many were inclined to accept the erroneous conclusion simply because it fit the theory (rather hypothesis) so nicely….a second sad event is the extent to which the “missing link” ape into man cult goes to discredit the objective skeptic (while that was not even Darwin’s point at all).

Do you want me to explain to the thread what Leakey found, or do you want to? I thought you were a scientist Paul? Care to share your stance on the findings and explain what you are getting at?

Wow! As much as I love and respect much of the work the Leakys did (the Parents not Richard) so much here was assumption based conclusions I do not know where to start.

Let’s start with the scenario then the assumption then the possibilities. Here in this area dating geologically to around 1.5 million years ago, we find a built unnatural monolithic structure, stone tools, footprints leading away, and about a football field away a partial (upper) skeleton of an ape. Let’s start with that scenario.

First assumption: No humans existed at that time….(1.5 million years ago)…the preconceived belief affecting the conclusion assumes that apes became humans (though there not actually having been any actual proof only hypothesis based interpretation of evidence)

The footprints were assumed thereby to be from the ape’s family although the footprints demonstrate no separate big toe or rear thumb-like feature (common to all apes). This is explained by the assumption that obviously this australopithecine variety had evolved human characteristics, BUT, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, this could be interpreted as evidence of early humans but that would have upset the theory based pedagoguery and they would most likely have been defamed, discredited, mischaracterized, and so on, as I am sure those other scientists who were skeptic of their assumption based conclusion were.

Another alternative IS that humans may have walked through this 1.5 million year old ground as late as a million years later, but we must not upset the proverbial applecart (though there is ZERO proof these footprints were from 1.5 million years ago).

These other two equally plausible POSSIBILITIES are what comes from not straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel whole. In other words, true rational thought regarding possible explanations should not be discarded or discredited because it does not agree with the popular argument (which in itself is a common logic fallacy).

Now for a second example via analogy: We find some stone tools and nearly a football field away we find the remains of a dead ape.

Erroneous hypothesis based conclusion (because after all humans allegedly did not exist at this time): The Ape and its family must have made these tools and used them.

Again they may have been made by early humans (this being evidence for that possibility) who may have killed the ape (maybe for dinner before moving on) or the ape died over a million years ago and somewhat later (even a million years later) some humans stopped there to camp and then moved on.

By analogy: Imagine if a million years from now all that was left of our civilization was the remains of my toilet and 250 yards away the partial skeleton of someone’s pet chimp. The discovery is then made….must we conclude this chimp and/or their family made and used this toilet? Absurd! The conclusion was both erroneous and assumption based.

All these artifacts could only be dated by the surrounding geology (the age when the original gorge was formed and the age of the rocks and soil samples. If in my chimp analogy they found human footprints that walked in mud would they also be correct in assuming the chimp had developed human feet? Use your mind man….this is irrational conclusionism…allowing the theory to dominate the data.

Understand MD I am not talking "Creationism" here. I am talking about true critical thought (not just thinking up ever more criticisms)...

 

[brother Paul]

Feel free to give me some examples. I think its hilarious that you took time out of feeding people to reproduce my old post before I corrected it. Shows me your priorities. Feeding people comes second to trolling on the net I guess.

Turns out she does not need me until 11:30, but I did not think that I had to explain that to you....but since you love to throw these little insulting darts I thought I would let you know.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Now I'm not a scientist, but do you know anything about radio polonium halos? I watched a video which claimed that radio polonium halos dissipate within a minute or so after contact with air. It's found in granite, and when they break open the granite rock, the halos can be seen under a microscope for a brief time.

I don't know to much about polonium halos, sadly.

The geological theory holds that granite got pushed up from the earths core in a molten state and dried/hardened over millions of years...

Now if that were so, then the granite should not have any radio polonium halos in it...but it's there. Conclusion; the granite cooled and hardened almost instantaneously, thereby sealing the rock...and the RPH inside. This finding supports the YE position.

It wouldn't necessarily promote a young earth, just that there needs to be more study into the halos.

Finding RPH in granite doesn't date the earth, but does support creationism.

No, it just shows that there is something to learn about the halos. Creationism would only be supported with evidence of creation. the halos don't necessarily point to anything other than more work needing to be done to understand how Polonium halos behave.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Clearly you are somewhat misinformed or else you yourself are trying to fool us. Piltdown man was accepted! For nearly 40 years it was a feature as a missing link in many Public School and College textbooks (see Alien L. Hammond, 'Tales of an Elusive Ancestor’, Science , November 1983 for one example of this testimony).

I think you meant Charles Hammond, the guy who thinks we were invaded by aliens. Pardon me if I don't accept this as reliable.

You mean The specimen was not defrocked publicly until 1953…

Choose a year Paul, was it 1983 or 1953?

but as with all frauds (like Java Man) objective scientists always contained those who were skeptical. It was just sad that so many were inclined to accept the erroneous conclusion simply because it fit the theory (rather hypothesis) so nicely….

Java wasn't a hoax, it was originally thought to be another link in ancestry, but instead was found to just be a variation on Homo Erectus. Paul do you actually look into what you post?

a second sad event is the extent to which the “missing link” ape into man cult goes to discredit the objective skeptic (while that was not even Darwin’s point at all).

Oh, so now its a cult, Paul do you actually believe half the stuff you post here?

Let’s start with the scenario then the assumption then the possibilities. Here in this area dating geologically to around 1.5 million years ago, we find a built unnatural monolithic structure, stone tools, footprints leading away, and about a football field away a partial (upper) skeleton of an ape. Let’s start with that scenario.

You are talking about one of the skeletons, you are aware they found more than one skeleton right? Please tell me you are aware that several Homo Habilis have been found by the Leaky family, and several other anthropologists have done research and escavations in that gorge and found more homo habilis skeletons. Are you aware of that Paul?

First assumption: No humans existed at that time….(1.5 million years ago)…the preconceived belief affecting the conclusion assumes that apes became humans (though there not actually having been any actual proof only hypothesis based interpretation of evidence)

No Paul, its not an assumption, there was no evidence at that time that humans existed 1.5 million years ago.

The footprints were assumed thereby to be from the ape’s family although the footprints demonstrate no separate big toe or rear thumb-like feature (common to all apes).

Can you show us the work that said the footprints were from the family, or are you asserting things that the research didn't actually say?

This is explained by the assumption that obviously this australopithecine variety had evolved human characteristics, BUT, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, this could be interpreted as evidence of early humans but that would have upset the theory based pedagoguery and they would most likely have been defamed, discredited, mischaracterized, and so on, as I am sure those other scientists who were skeptic of their assumption based conclusion were.

Paul, you are making assertions and not linking us to anything to verify what you are saying. You've already misused the words assumed and hoax. You also sourced a guy who thinks the Earth was colonized by Aliens. So forgive me if I don't believe you.

Another alternative IS that humans may have walked through this 1.5 million year old ground as late as a million years later, but we must not upset the proverbial applecart (though there is ZERO proof these footprints were from 1.5 million years ago).

You can upset the apple cart if you have evidence, however you are trying to discredit the foot prints by saying they don't resemble ape or human foot prints, now you are trying to assert that humans could have made them anyway. Choose one Paul, you can't have it both ways.

These other two equally plausible POSSIBILITIES

No they aren't possibilities since you didn't do anything but assert that those 2 things could happen. There is no reason to accept what you are saying without any evidence.

In other words, true rational thought regarding possible explanations should not be discarded or discredited because it does not agree with the popular argument (which in itself is a common logic fallacy).

No Paul its not a fallacy to not accept your fallacious assertions. You don't have evidence, just speculation.

Now for a second example via analogy:

Nope, I'm not going to address your straw man. You can call it an analogy, but we both know its just you making up a scenario for you to beat down.

Again they may have been made by early humans

Show me the evidence.

who may have killed the ape (maybe for dinner before moving on)

Show me your evidence.

or the ape died over a million years ago and somewhat later (even a million years later) some humans stopped there to camp and then moved on.

Show me your evidence.

You just made 3 claims without evidence.

By analogy:

No

Understand MD I am not talking "Creationism" here. I am talking about true critical thought (not just thinking up ever more criticisms)...

No you aren't talking about creationism, you are just making stuff up and skirting around showing evidence and misrepresenting what actual researchers have said.

It literally looks like you just went to a web site and read maybe a paragraph on each thing.

 

[Edward]

I don't know to much about polonium halos, sadly...

While I am not a scientist per se, (or you either), It's a given that neither of us are idiots either, so we'll just do as good as we can. That said, how in the world can you make either statement in your second paragraph/quote? You don't know.
They know all about RPH 's and the rates of decay. Supposedly, within the scientific community, rates of decay and that turns to lead over time is not debatable, it's accepted facts.

...It wouldn't necessarily promote a young earth, just that there needs to be more study into the halos...

They know how they work, lol. Your lackadaisical response/assumption would essentially blow the evolutionary theory out of the water because if true, then it would also be true for those depending upon rates of decay & carbon dating for explaining evolution! I'll post a video on it so we both can learn more about it.

...No, it just shows that there is something to learn about the halos. Creationism would only be supported with evidence of creation. the halos don't necessarily point to anything other than more work needing to be done to understand how Polonium halos behave.

Again, you and me may not know all the details about PH's and rates of decay, but the scientific community does. That stuff isn't disputed. It shouldn't be there.

 

[Milk-Drops]

While I am not a scientist per se, (or you either), It's a given that neither of us are idiots either, so we'll just do as good as we can. That said, how in the world can you make either statement in your second paragraph/quote? You don't know.

To clarify what I was saying, I know a little bit about how radio metric dating works, but not enough to get into massive details, my main studies in science revolved around Biology, dating methods are rooted more in Chemistry and Geology. What I was saying is that the Halos could be there from decay but that alone wouldn't show a young Earth, there is more than just granite that is used to date the Earth. It could just be an anomaly, but I'm open to evidence.

They know all about RPH 's and the rates of decay. Supposedly, within the scientific community, rates of decay and that turns to lead over time is not debatable, it's accepted facts.

I understand, I just don't know enough about the findings to make a call.

They know how they work, lol. Your lackadaisical response/assumption would essentially blow the evolutionary theory out of the water

No, because it isn't even related to Evolutionary theory. Radioactive decay doesn't have anything to say about selection pressures or genetics. Evolutionary theory is Biology not chemistry.

because if true, then it would also be true for those depending upon rates of decay & carbon dating for explaining evolution!

Carbon Dating is not used to support evolution. Carbon dating is way too limited in time scale.

I'll post a video on it so we both can learn more about it.

Thank you.

Again, you and me may not know all the details about PH's and rates of decay, but the scientific community does. That stuff isn't disputed. It shouldn't be there.

I understand, and that is why I'm going to look for research that surrounds these halos and see what I can find and what the explanation is for why they are there.

 

[Sinthesis]

Google 'polonium halos debunked'.