[_ Old Earth _] Revised Carbon 14 testing

[jwu]

O.K., first thing I noticed with the correlation between the varves is there are
many points where the C14 dated layers are off by 200 to 600 years (and
that's of the dates that were accepted as valid by the researchers).
Second, varve analysis is a rough guess at best:

That's just a few percent of deviation, and perfect results cannot be expected in first instance. This does not cast doubt on the validity of the method.
Furthermore, if the method is so unreliable as you want to make it appear,why do the varves of two different lakes in two different places of the earth agree with each other? There is no reason why that should be so

Second, varve analysis is a rough guess at best:

Hardly. It's an extrapolation which of course isn't perfect, but calling it "a rough guess" is great exaggeration.

Uranium-Thorium dating is subject to the same assumptions as C14
dating...uniformitarian interpretation of the decay rates.

IS there anything which indicates that they changed in the past? How about things which indicate that the decay rates did not change, such as the oklo reactor or supernova 1987N? Why would all decay rates be affected in a way so that they still produce correlating results?

Another particularly troublesome aspect of the technique is the requirement
for the object to be dated- it must take up uranium-238 and no thorium,
then immediately be closed off so it would not be able to take in more.
To me, that's very unrealistic.

The assumptions that each of these radiometric dating methods make are:
1. Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate
any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through
their decay processâ€â€or the dating will be thrown off. As we've discussed in
previous posts, there's no such thing as a closed system...except the
universe itself.

2. Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products.
But how do you confirm this?

Initial presence of daughter materials is equivalent in effect to contamination. Both can be detected with isochron dating methods.

3. The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must
never have changed. I think this is extremely unrealistic, which is why i only
use C14 as a relative dating tool...not absolute. The decay rate of any
radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high
energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if
there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if
physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if
certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

No interaction of neutrinos with decay rates is known, as far as i know.
Radiation also has very little effect on decay rates. Neutron capture is known to be able to put the decay rate of beryllium (the most sensitive isotope in this regard) off by no more than less than 1%. In order to account for a young earth it however would have to put it off by 100,000,000%! And that still would leave the problem of excess energy - compressing 5 billion years worth of nuclear decay energy release into 6000 years would turn the earth into a ball of molten slag at best, more likely a plasma ball. It's the current "slow" decay which keeps the inside of the earth molten - imagine what happens if the energy release rate is increased by a factor of 1,000,000!

4. If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere
surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive
minerals.

That's just wrong.

5. The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles above us and is intensely radioactive. According to Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.
Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation
time of radioactive minerals.

...which still cannot even nearly account for the required change of the decay speed, as that's exactly what was tested with the beryllium decay - a low percent value. Furthermore, the surface of the earth being exposed to radiation like that would utterly sterilize it, and it'd be quite detectable today just like the surrounding of tchernobyl will still be radioactive in thousands of years - and the intensity of radiation that you propose would have been many many orders of magnitude higher than that of tchernobyl...

6. A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had
to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only
those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence.

Again, isochron dating detects this in very most cases, and the mechanism which removes daughter products from lava flows is well understood.

7. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present
reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Is there any reason to assume initial apparent age, i.e. a deceitful creator?

So in summary, you can have different radiometric dates correlating for a particular sample or between samples, but their still giving you relative
results, not absolute.

No - if the dating methods were flawed in the way that you suggest we should not see correlation. E.g. the effect of radiation would vary greatly depending on the location of the sample, due to exposure of different intensity of radiation. And other independent methods which are not affected by radiation shouldn't agree to those methods at all then. Eevn if e.g. nuclear decay was twice as fast for all isotopes everywhere on earth in the past , there is no reason whatsoever why completely independent methods such as varves should be put off by the precisely same factor.

Furthermore there is sufficient indication that the decay rates did not change in the past in first instance...there is no way how you can explain that away without a change of natural constants such as the speed of light, and other incredibly fine tuned changes to other casually unrelated constants which make any signs of these changes disappear.
That happening by coincidence (especially in a universe ruled by a God) is extremely unlikely, it's safe to say that this didn't happen beyond reasonable doubt. I see no way to reconcile this with an desired age of the earth which is off by a factor of about a million.

To make all the assumptions given above for the dating to be correct is not reasonable in my opinion.

The assumptions however have been checked and verified.

Do you not agree that an old earth is a very good explaination of all these things?

One of the links (the one which included fossilized riverbeds, results of slow erosion of limestone, in strata which supposedly was laid down by the flood during a single year) was written by Glenn Morton, a former young earth creationist and now theistic evolutionist. He has a formal education in geology and saw no way to reconcile the data which he worked with with a young earth. If the dating methods were so obviously flawed as you suggest, don't you think he would have retained his stance on these matters?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

That's just a few percent of deviation, and perfect results cannot be expected in first instance. This does not cast doubt on the validity of the method.
Furthermore, if the method is so unreliable as you want to make it appear, why do the varves of two different lakes in two different places of the earth agree with each other? There is no reason why that should be so

Because the researchers wanted them to. Just because there is a very rough

correlation in C14 dates between strata doesn't say a whole lot.

And as I said before, I do think C14 is a valuable tool for relative dating,

but not absolute dating. Also, the individual varve strata are in no way a

representation of one year.

The researchers were obviously trying to find a way to calibrate C14 dating

further back than the 4500 year old Bristlecone Pines in California

(interestingly, these date right after The Flood). But the

assumption that each strat represents a year is a huge flaw.

IS there anything which indicates that they changed in the past? How about things which indicate that the decay rates did not change, such as the oklo reactor or supernova 1987N? Why would all decay rates be affected in a way so that they still produce correlating results?

Here's a few experts opinions (also evolutionists):

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'.

(emphasis added)

William D. Stansfield: Evolutionist / Ph.D. / Biology Department, California Polytechnic State University.

"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man."

(emphasis added)

Frederic B. Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism," Industrial Research and Development, Vol. 24 (June 1982), p. 21.

"Radiochronologists must resort to indirect methods which involve certain basic assumptions. Not only is there no way to verify the validity of these assumptions, but inherent in these assumptions are factors that assure that the ages so derived, whether accurate or not, will always range in the millions to billions of years (excluding the carbon-14 method, which is useful for dating samples only a few thousand years old)."

Duane T. Gish

Ph.D.,Biochemistry, University of California at Berkeley

"The different methods of radiometric dating, when checked against each other, often are in approximate agreement. If the results are misinterpreted as to age, as proposed here, then a common unknown factor (a measurement or an assumption which is defective) may be perturbing all the age values to a longer apparent age than actual. Another explanation in some isolated cases of dating conclusions may be a 'tracking phenomenon.' By this is meant, a tendency of reported scientific measurements to cluster about an incorrect value. Researchers are often reluctant to report findings too far different from previous results in their published findings. This clustering effect shows up in reports of nuclear half-life determinations, and it may also rule the 4.5 billion year assumed history of the earth and moon."

Donald DeYoung
Ph.D., Astrophysics, Iowa State University

Initial presence of daughter materials is equivalent in effect to contamination. Both can be detected with isochron dating methods.

Can you back that up. I don't believe there's anyway to determine initial

ratios. The radiometric dating techniques falsely assume no daughter

product at all at "time zero". That's a huge assumption.

Is there any reason to assume initial apparent age, i.e. a deceitful creator?

I believe our Creator spelled things out very clearly for us in Genesis.

It's when we buy into (or have forced upon us) the teachings of man, do

the teachings of our Creator appear to contradict man's "evidence".

Do you not agree that an old earth is a very good explaination of all these things?

I believe the geologic column speaks for itself.

I believe the late Dr. Henry Morris was right on in face of fierce opposition

by his colleagues:

...Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformityâ€â€that is, periods of uplift and erosionâ€â€at the various interfaces.

Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

Glenn Morton, a former young earth creationist and now theistic evolutionist. He has a formal education in geology and saw no way to reconcile the data which he worked with with a young earth. If the dating methods were so obviously flawed as you suggest, don't you think he would have retained his stance on these matters?

I have no idea? Maybe he did it for his career (and really didn’t change his mind). It’s an uphill battle in Academia if your openly a young earth advocate. Most are like a programmed units.I don’t know how many times I’ve been told by academia types these furnaces here in Texas are just natural formations, and that the intricate shapes are like “looking at cloudsâ€Â. Everyone of them...using the same explanation. It’s scary.But the field archeologists with The Texas Historical Commision, and various other field types have told me no doubt about it...their furnaces, and they recognize the intricate carvings as a profile of a man.

The problem academia has with these furnaces is they were recently uncovered by the natural dislodging of previously laid down sedimentary rock dating in the Cretaceous (Upper Washita Group, Del Rio Formation-97-96 mya- Lol).

Imagine that: Man smelting iron while dinosaurs were walking around. To say the least, it doesn’t settle well with academia types at all!! Oh well, the research carries on without them.

How could a global flood, a cataclysmic event, form fine undisturbed layers like these over hundreds of square kilometres? Flood layers look significantly different.

These are minerals which precipitated from the tranquil late Flood ocean “pondsâ€Â...in rather rapid succession. There’s evidence of this ponding with the huge amount marine animal remains in the same strata (dated at 50,000 rcybp). This example weakens the idea of long ages between the fine strata. If the strata were exposed any amount of time, there would be unconformities much larger than the millimeters in thickness of each strat. This column had to be created relatively quickly (probably from evaporation) over vast amounts of area. West Texas is very flat.
How would you, as an old-earther, explain this varve situation.

protos:I've realized it's pointless to debate the same old canards who are unwilling to learn: Reznwerks, for the 50-freaking millionth time, the rate of decay for elements has not been constant throughout history. This has been shown by the erupted volcano crust in New Zealand in 1949 dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old, and by Potassium-Argon dating as 45 million years old. Learn freaking empirical science!

jwu:Furthermore, due to the long half life of potasium (1.3x10^9 years), that method is only good for old samples. Saying that it's useless because it doesn't come up with good results for young samples is like saying that a method which for known reason produces results of +-50 years is not good for dating things in the thousands of years range because it produces crappy results for things which are a week old.jwu:Trying to use a case in which the dating method wasn't even expected to come up with a good result due to its normal error margin is outright deception. The one who first used that case (Andrew Snelling, if i recall correctly) is either incompetent or a liar.

Charlieeception? How? The whole idea is to test the validity of the dating technique. 45 million years-normal margin of error? If we can't even rely on these dating techniques to give accurate results for samples for which we know the date, how can we expect accurate results from items we for which we don't know the date. How do we know the samples aren't just a few hundred or thousand years old? There are many, many examples of just this...erroneous dates produced by radiometric dates for samples for which the date is known. So for sure, we should never rely on these techniques to give us accurate older dates...the samples could just as easily be very young.

jwu:

It shows the possibility of young rocks showing old ages within a limited bandwidth, which makes the method inaccurate for young ages. As i previously explained, a method which gives a result of +- 50 years won't be good for dating things which aren't older than a week, but it's fine for things which are thousands of years old - and it also indicates if something is too young to be dated properly.

Charlie
If it's aging young rocks as old, then how do you know the dates your obtaining from other formations aren't just a few thousand years old. There's no way to know.

jwu:And how exactly can this happen? What exactly is the flaw which you suggest there is, and why do these independent methods correlate? That'd be one huge freak accident if they all were mistaken, wouldn't it?

It’s circular reasoning. It’s assumed some rocks are old, so some of the dates are valid dates. If younger rocks show older dates, that is expected, because the dating only works on older rocks.


Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

delete-double post

 

[jwu]

Because the researchers wanted them to. Just because there is a very rough correlation in C14 dates between strata doesn't say a whole lot.

And as I said before, I do think C14 is a valuable tool for relative dating,
but not absolute dating. Also, the individual varve strata are in no way a
representation of one year.

"Very rough correlation"? I wouldn't quite call it so.

Furthermore, if the varves are not annual, why are the varve counts of two different lakes on opposite sides of the earth in agreement? Is there any reason why they should be off by exactly the same amounth? Why do they also agree with coral layers, a different process altogether? Explain this!

The researchers were obviously trying to find a way to calibrate C14 dating
further back than the 4500 year old Bristlecone Pines in California

How about the continuous tree ring records which go back way farther than that, 8000 years in case of Bristlecone pine fossils and over 10000 years for European oaks?

Your quotes from individual people are nice, and they demonstrate that the methods of dating are put under serious scrutiny from us evil evolutionists as well - and they withstand that scrutiny. If you don't think so, then it would be a good idea to bring the actual objections of these people to the table, to back them up.

Can you back that up. I don't believe there's anyway to determine initial
ratios. The radiometric dating techniques falsely assume no daughter
product at all at "time zero". That's a huge assumption.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

I believe our Creator spelled things out very clearly for us in Genesis.
It's when we buy into (or have forced upon us) the teachings of man, do
the teachings of our Creator appear to contradict man's "evidence".

First off, every single interpretation of scripture is nothing but man's teaching either.
Why do you think it was Christian geologists who in the 19th century came to the conclusion that the earth is old?

...Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

Local catastrophes...

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

I've addressed that before. Basically he is saying that because there were ways of dating stuff before radiometry was developed, radiometry is not used. That's utterly wrong of course.

He then goes on about fossils and so on...well, if the flood model is correct, why are the fossils sorted in the way they are? Please give a specific explaination why we don't find bunny bones in the cambrian. Why don't we find dinosaur bones above the Cretaceous? What exactly caused this distribution? Evolution exlains it. The flood model does not.

I have no idea? Maybe he did it for his career (and really didn’t change his mind). It’s an uphill battle in Academia if your openly a young earth advocate.

That wouldn't require him to openly challenge young earth creationism though.

The problem academia has with these furnaces is they were recently uncovered by the natural dislodging of previously laid down sedimentary rock dating in the Cretaceous (Upper Washita Group, Del Rio Formation-97-96 mya- Lol).

So what? These furnaces, assuming they are genuine being made in cretacous rock means nothing but that that rock already was there, and exposed to the surface at the time when they were made. Since they have been exposed by natural processed now, why couldn't they have been exposed a few dozen thousand years ago as well, and were later covered again?

Oh, and didn't you say that cretaceous strata was laid down by the flood? They must be post flood then...i don't quite think people were melting iron at the bottom of a global flood.

These are minerals which precipitated from the tranquil late Flood ocean “pondsâ€Â...in rather rapid succession. There’s evidence of this ponding with the huge amount marine animal remains in the same strata (dated at 50,000 rcybp). This example weakens the idea of long ages between the fine strata. If the strata were exposed any amount of time, there would be unconformities much larger than the millimeters in thickness of each strat. This column had to be created relatively quickly (probably from evaporation) over vast amounts of area. West Texas is very flat.
How would you, as an old-earther, explain this varve situation.

Annual varves in a large lake. What is the problem?

It’s circular reasoning. It’s assumed some rocks are old, so some of the dates are valid dates. If younger rocks show older dates, that is expected, because the dating only works on older rocks.

No, it's because the mechanism is well understood and the method itself indicates that the sample is outside of its good range.
Only if the method is actually known to be good for e.g. dating stuff between 1 and 100 million years comes up with 20 million years, and another method which is good for 20 million to 2 billion years comes up with 50 million years, then there is a problem. Such cases however are rare, and there is no reason why independent methods should produce the agreeing results which we get to see if you were corrent.

Your objection is like saying that since yardsticks fail to come up with good results for the width of a hair, they are not good for measuring the length of your room.

However...how about these dinosaur footprints in tilted strata:

Quite some geological activity must have taken place after these were made.

Furthermore, there are footprints in many strata of e.g. the grand canyon area. You used to explain that footprints in supposed flood strata was only covered by later landslides and that the flood had ended with the strata in question was deposited later....this however very clearly does not apply to e.g. the grand canyon! Its strata clearly was not laid down by landslides.

Built by termines...in supposed flood strata (Jurassic).

How about animal burrows in supposed flood strata?

http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm

How about fossilized riverbeds, cut into supposed flood strata and buried deep under supposed flood strata? These things don't form over night (especially not meandering channels cut into limestone like these do), and especially not at the bottom of a global flood...

http://www.christianforums.com/t1442552

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu:


Furthermore, if the varves are not annual, why are the varve counts of two different lakes on opposite sides of the earth in agreement? Is there any reason why they should be off by exactly the same amount? Why do they also agree with coral layers, a different process altogether? Explain this!

Just because you have a match on relative dates doesn’t mean you have a

better case for absolute dates. If the flawed assumption is made for

straight- line extrapolation into the past, then one would expect to observe

similar rcy dates for similar strata (or other C14 containing objects), but that

doesn’t mean these are absolute dates.

...one "counted" varves, it proved to be a fairly monotonous and tiresome task resulting in much time lost and much subjectivity due to determining layers. One had to take microscopic evaluations of the material and form some sort of hypothesis or interpretation from the shape and thickness of the layers. This provided inaccurate data because different varve types can cause mistakes in the algorithm that is used and produce miscounts. For example, sub-annual laminations can be counted as extra years, and certain years may not deposit a carbonate layer, which often would not be counted. Thus, this technique is much criticized for providing insufficient data to determine such changes...

http://www.mnsu.edu

In the Green River shale deposits up to 6 million varves are found. Does this prove 6 million
years?
Actually, in no location do all the varves exist. The total is derived by correlating sequences from several locations, arranging the partial records in consecutive order. Obviously, conclusions are subjective.
The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.
There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.
Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

John D. Morris
PhD
Geological Engineering

University of Oklahoma.

jwu:

How about the continuous tree ring records which go back way farther than that, 8000 years in case of Bristlecone pine fossils and over 10000 years for European oaks?

Your quotes from individual people are nice, and they demonstrate that the methods of dating are put under serious scrutiny from us evil evolutionists as well - and they withstand that scrutiny. If you don't think so, then it would be a good idea to bring the actual objections of these people to the table, to back them up.

The 8000 and 10,000 year assumptions are just that: assumptions. Huge

ones that involve circular reasoning.

One of the scientists working on the project has issued a statement that the tree may turn out to be part of a much older tree that was now underground, but that this was definitely not a foregone conclusion. He said the media 'decided to run with the story’ that scientists working in Tasmania have definitely found the oldest living organism in the world. We have made no such claim'.

(emphasis added)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... e_ring.asp

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

(emphasis added)

Dr. Don Batten

Ph.D, University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural

Science

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this.

Dr. Don Batten
Ph.D, University of Sydney, Department of Agronomy and Horticultural

Science

jwu:

If the flood model is correct, why are the fossils sorted in the way they are? Please give a specific explaination why we don't find bunny bones in the Cambrian. Why don't we find dinosaur bones above the Cretaceous? What exactly caused this distribution? Evolution explains it. The flood model does not.

Because these strata are dated by the fossils they contain. It’s circular

reasoning.

So what? These furnaces, assuming they are genuine being made in cretacous rock means nothing but that that rock already was there, and exposed to the surface at the time when they were made. Since they have been exposed by natural processed now, why couldn't they have been exposed a few dozen thousand years ago as well, and were later covered again?

Oh, and didn't you say that cretaceous strata was laid down by the flood? They must be post flood then...i don't quite think people were melting iron at the bottom of a global flood.

The furnace structures were covered by a solid layer of gray shale,

common in Central Texas, until just very recently. This shale is “dated†at

99 mya. The limestone bedrock underlies this stratum.

With the lack of erosion apparent in these structures, it is only reasonable

to assume they were covered quickly in the past, and remained covered

until recently.

So what do you think? How would you interpret this situation: carved

furnaces (or maybe they were sculpted into the shoreline mud) with

excellent evidence of iron smelting, sandwiched between two Cretaceous

strata?

charlie:


These are minerals which precipitated from the tranquil late Flood ocean “pondsâ€Â...in rather rapid succession. There’s evidence of this ponding with the huge amount marine animal remains in the same strata (dated at 50,000 rcybp). This example weakens the idea of long ages between the fine strata. If the strata were exposed any amount of time, there would be unconformities much larger than the millimeters in thickness of each strat. This column had to be created relatively quickly (probably from evaporation) over vast amounts of area. West Texas is very flat.
How would you, as an old-earther, explain this varve situation.

jwu:

Annual varves in a large lake. What is the problem?

Well, if your being consistent, then these strata were made in the Permian,

which is a Time when West Texas was a receding ocean basin that stretched

to the Artic:

Mississippian

Pennsylvanian

Permian


http://geoweb.tamu.edu/faculty/herbert/ ... hctime.htm

It's pretty straight forward that these apparent "varves" are evaporite and

precipitate strata left behind by a gradually waning ocean basin.

charlie:

Can you back that up. I don't believe there's anyway to determine initial
ratios. The radiometric dating techniques falsely assume no daughter
product at all at "time zero". That's a huge assumption.

jwu:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

How would you interpret the following:

Apparent isochrons, fictitious isochrons, mantle isochrons, pseudoisochrons,

secondary isochrons, inherited isochrons, erupted isochrons, mixing lines,

mixing isochron....

RUSIDIUM-87/STRONTIUM-86

Figure 1. Rb-Sr "isochron" for deeply buried Cardenas Lavas of the Eastern Grand Canyon, The slope of the line indicates an age of 1090 million years and overturned five K-Ar "model dates."

RUBIDIUM-87/STR(>NTIUM-86

Figure 2. Fictitious Rb-Sr isochron for the Western Grand Canyon lava flows. Although the lavas flowed over the rim and into the Grand Canyon, the "isochron" age of 1500 million years would make these youngest lava flows among the oldest rocks yet dated in the Grand Canyon.

Using data on rubidium and strontium from the Western Grand Canyon lava flows published by Leeman,7 we can construct an isochron for these lavas. Six Pleistocene lavas from Uinkaret Plateau (Stages III and IV of Hamblin's later classification)8 indicate a line appearing to form a good isochron in Figure 2, the slope determining an "age" of 1500-million-years. The correlation of these six points to the 1500-million-year isochron is almost as good as the six points forming the 1090-million-year isochron for the Cardenas Lavas (Figure 1), which overturned five K-Ar "model dates." Geologists, however, must reject the alleged "isochron" for the Western Grand Canyon lava flows (Figure 2) because these most recent flows would otherwise appear to be the oldest rocks of the Grand Canyon. No geologist could accept the erosional form of the Grand Canyon as enduring for 1.5 billion years!

Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.

Geology, Pennsylvania State University

The isochron method assumes that the datable lava flow cooled from molten rock having different Rb/Sr ratios but having uniform mixing isotopically (all samples having the same 87Sr/86Sr ratio). What if the strontium in the lava was not isotopically homogeneous when the flow cooled? The answer to this question has been summarized by Gunter Faure. According to Faure, the incomplete mixing of two magmas having different strontium isotope ratios produces a mixing diagram where all mixtures lie on a straight line on an 87Sr/86Sr versus 87Rb/86Sr graph with the slope of the line having no identifiable time significance! Such two-component mixing diagrams produce what Faure calls "fictitious isochrons." Another geologic cause for these straight line plots is offered by Brooks, James, and Hart.10 They document twenty-two examples of false rubidium-strontium isochrons and propose that such characteristics are inherited from the molten material's source at great depth in the earth. The straight line plot is again explained by geologic process, not by time-dependent nuclear decay within the rock.

Gunter Faure
Professor Emeritus
Geochemistry, Hydrogeology
MIT

jwu:

No, it's because the mechanism is well understood and the method itself indicates that the sample is outside of its good range.
Only if the method is actually known to be good for e.g. dating stuff between 1 and 100 million years comes up with 20 million years, and another method which is good for 20 million to 2 billion years comes up with 50 million years, then there is a problem. Such cases however are rare, and there is no reason why independent methods should produce the agreeing results which we get to see if you were corrent.

Your objection is like saying that since yardsticks fail to come up with good results for the width of a hair, they are not good for measuring the length of your room.

However...how about these dinosaur footprints in tilted strata:

The vertical dino footprint fossils and other uncomformities

are easily explained by recent tectonic, volcanic, sedimentary and erosional

processes.

For example, the termite mound was fossilized in sediment. Termite

mounds are very hard...similar to a shell or bone.

It’s also well known that much volcanic activity has occurred relatively

recently in the Grand Canyon area, and easily explains the uplifting of the

strata which containn the dino tracks (the strata was obviously flat at one

point).

It’s cool...lava “water falls†and dams that lie sealed tight upon the

underlying strata occur in multiple regions of the canyon basin.

These lava flows are dated, conservatively, by the Rb-Sr technique at

“1.5 billion years (‘isochron confirmed’)â€Â

This is obviously silly.

No serious geologist can accept the erosional form of the Grand Canyon as

enduring for a 1.5 billion years!

jwu:

Your objection is like saying that since yardsticks fail to come up with good results for the width of a hair, they are not good for measuring the length of your room

It’s only the assumption of long ages that requires a “yardstick†be used for

measuring the width of a hair, hence the numerous “dating†errors.

How about fossilized riverbeds, cut into supposed flood strata and buried deep under supposed flood strata? These things don't form over night (especially not meandering channels cut into limestone like these do), and especially not at the bottom of a global flood...

[/quote}

That’s very similar to the situation I’m researching here in Central Texas.

Definitive evidence of iron smelting sandwiched between “Cretaceousâ€Â

limestone and “Cretaceous†shale.

Obviously the fossilzed riverbeds were buried rapidly. Obviously the furnaces

were buried rapidly. What we’re seeing here is “Cenozoic†waxing and

waning of sea levels and sedimentary, erosional and volcanic events ( i.e.-

cyclical late stages of the flood).

Also assuming the riverbeds were rock at the time is just that: an

assumption. Many of these “Cretaceous†limestone formations have

evidence of being soft before being hardened (as we’ve discussed

thoroughly). Thus these riverbeds were very easily (and most probably)

formed rapidly.



Peace

 

[jwu]

Just because you have a match on relative dates doesn’t mean you have a
better case for absolute dates. If the flawed assumption is made for
straight- line extrapolation into the past, then one would expect to observe
similar rcy dates for similar strata (or other C14 containing objects), but that
doesn’t mean these are absolute dates.

Sure, there is a theoretical possibility that nuclear decay, varve formation in different lakes on opposite sides of the earth, coral growth and tree rings all were faster by identical factors in the past.
But why should they be? Why would it have been the same factor? Is there anything indicating that this happened? What is the mechanism which you suggest is responsible for this?

There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass,

even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.
Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

I don't see the problem - it can take many years for bones to decay.

The 8000 and 10,000 year assumptions are just that: assumptions. Huge ones that involve circular reasoning.

Then please explain the actual circle. You seem to be invoking this any time you runnn into problems. Just being open to the possibility of old ages doesn't make it circular.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings. As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such a notion.

And indeed there is minor deviation from C14 records, which can be caused either by thisor deviating amounths of C14 in the atmosphere. However, trees in different regions of the earth such as California and Europe being subject to the same deviations so that they still produce a decently fitting match to C14 is highly unlikely. There should not be any correlation.

Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees. This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 (14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age. A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards.

Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process. It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this.

If one would only rely on the C14, then that'd be circular. The C14 however is only used as a further verification of the matching tree ring pattern.

[quote:f897b]If the flood model is correct, why are the fossils sorted in the way they are? Please give a specific explaination why we don't find bunny bones in the Cambrian. Why don't we find dinosaur bones above the Cretaceous? What exactly caused this distribution? Evolution explains it. The flood model does not.

Because these strata are dated by the fossils they contain. It’s circular

reasoning.
[/quote:f897b]What does that have to do with dating? The K/T boundary can be identified independently from any actual dating methods pretty much anywhere on the earth, due to its unique iridium content. Completely regardless of the actual age of these strata, there is no reason why the fossils should be distributed like that in the flood scenario.

The furnace structures were covered by a solid layer of gray shale,
common in Central Texas, until just very recently. This shale is “dated†at
99 mya. The limestone bedrock underlies this stratum.
With the lack of erosion apparent in these structures, it is only reasonable
to assume they were covered quickly in the past, and remained covered
until recently.

So what do you think? How would you interpret this situation: carved
furnaces (or maybe they were sculpted into the shoreline mud) with
excellent evidence of iron smelting, sandwiched between two Cretaceous
strata?

What makes you think the gray shale was cretaceous?

It's pretty straight forward that these apparent "varves" are evaporite and
precipitate strata left behind by a gradually waning ocean basin.

Large lake, ocean basin...what is the relevant difference?

How would you interpret the following:

Apparent isochrons, fictitious isochrons, mantle isochrons, pseudoisochrons,

secondary isochrons, inherited isochrons, erupted isochrons, mixing lines,

mixing isochron....

That's pretty much explained in the article, isn't it`?
Isochron dating isn't just throwing pulverized rock into a machine and then one gets a result. There are things that need to be considered, else one can get not e.g. the solidification date but the mantle date.

It’s cool...lava “water falls†and dams that lie sealed tight upon the
underlying strata occur in multiple regions of the canyon basin.
These lava flows are dated, conservatively, by the Rb-Sr technique at
“1.5 billion years (‘isochron confirmed’)â€Â
This is obviously silly.
No serious geologist can accept the erosional form of the Grand Canyon as
enduring for a 1.5 billion years!

Reference?

It’s only the assumption of long ages that requires a “yardstick†be used for
measuring the width of a hair, hence the numerous “dating†errors.

I really don't undestand what you're trying to say here. It's not the assumption of long ages which requires this (not an assumption by the way, but a conclusion), but your assumption of young ages.

It's in your young earth scenario that yardsticks are used to measure the width of what you think are hairs. However, instead of indicating that the samples are too thin/young, they come up with large figures - indicating that it's not hair that it is being measured, but the thickness of trees.

That’s very similar to the situation I’m researching here in Central Texas.

Definitive evidence of iron smelting sandwiched between “Cretaceousâ€Â

limestone and “Cretaceous†shale.

Again, what idicates that it's cretaceous shale?

That’s very similar to the situation I’m researching here in Central Texas.
Definitive evidence of iron smelting sandwiched between “Cretaceousâ€Â
limestone and “Cretaceous†shale.
Obviously the fossilzed riverbeds were buried rapidly. Obviously the furnaces
were buried rapidly.

The speed at which these riverbeds were buried is irrelevant. The relevant point is that they cannot form rapidly in first instance.
What stopped the sedimentation process of the shale while the limestone was forming, and vice versa? Why did this happen repeatedly? Why is the riverbed meandering? How could the limestone (consisting of animal shells!) form this quickly?

Also assuming the riverbeds were rock at the time is just that: an
assumption. Many of these “Cretaceous†limestone formations have
evidence of being soft before being hardened (as we’ve discussed
thoroughly). Thus these riverbeds were very easily (and most probably)
formed rapidly.

Actually we have not discussed such a thing at all...limestone can be soft enough to get perforated with footprints, but that's an entirely different thing than a meandering riverbed.
Strong currents wouldn't meander like that, and weak currents wouldn't have enough time to cut such a deep riverbed before the stratum is being buried with the next layer.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Hey Bro.

Promise I'm not blowing you off.

Texas Historical Commission is here for a few days.

I'll respond to your points hopefully this weekend.

Thanks for your patience.

Peace

Charlie

 

[jwu]

Just take your time.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Sure, there is a theoretical possibility that nuclear decay, varve formation in different lakes on opposite sides of the earth, coral growth and tree rings all were faster by identical factors in the past.
But why should they be? Why would it have been the same factor? Is there anything indicating that this happened? What is the mechanism which you suggest is responsible for this?

Because each uses the same measurement tool to extend further than

4500 years ago: C14 dating.

If all but a remanent of life was killed all at once, then the amount of C14

in specimens at death would have much less than predicted by the

uniformitarian model and eventually close to zero (i.e.- 50,000 rcybp)

The fossil record and geologic "time eras" speak plainly of a world wide

deluge. Therefore we should well account for this rapid C14 drop.

I don't see the problem - it can take many years for bones to decay.

Whole fish are fossilized, not just the bones.

Also, birds don't sink to any depth because of their low density structure

(buoyancy). What explanation would you provide for these numerous bird

fossils being formed on the bed of a deep lake? And whole catfish carcasses

transgressing several layers of "varve" strata?

Then please explain the actual circle. You seem to be invoking this any time you runnn into problems. Just being open to the possibility of old ages doesn't make it circular.

No problems. The circle is that any extended chronologies are pieced

together using C14 dating, and then used to verify that C14 dating is valid

as an absolute dating method.

And indeed there is minor deviation from C14 records, which can be caused either by thisor deviating amounths of C14 in the atmosphere. However, trees in different regions of the earth such as California and Europe being subject to the same deviations so that they still produce a decently fitting match to C14 is highly unlikely. There should not be any correlation.

If their the same relative age, then C14 results would correlate.

Again, assuming a uniform C14 decay for an extended period is just a wild

guess.

What makes you think the gray shale was cretaceous?

Because of the fossils it contains.

Large lake, ocean basin...what is the relevant difference?

Because a ocean scenario strengthens the case for a wide spread flood. The

finely differentiated evaporite strata further strengthens the case. And then

the numerous marine animals trapped in the same strata is icing on the

cake.

I really don't undestand what you're trying to say here. It's not the assumption of long ages which requires this (not an assumption by the way, but a conclusion), but your assumption of young ages.

You have by admission, precluded the possibly of a young earth, and

therefore made the assumption of an old earth. By using instruments that

supposedly only measure long ages, possible young ages are precluded by

assumption. It's circular reasoning.

The speed at which these riverbeds were buried is irrelevant. The relevant point is that they cannot form rapidly in first instance.
What stopped the sedimentation process of the shale while the limestone was forming, and vice versa? Why did this happen repeatedly? Why is the riverbed meandering? How could the limestone (consisting of animal shells!) form this quickly?

Sure they could be formed rapidly as a ocean recedes and the land drains.

If the elevation gradient is low, then you would expect water to drain in a

meandering pattern. Also, lime sets very quickly when combined with

alluvial gravel and sand...this is how modern concrete is made.


Peace

 

[jwu]

Apologies for the delay...

Because each uses the same measurement tool to extend further than
4500 years ago: C14 dating.

That's simply not true. Tree ring sequences are matched based on the actual patterns and C14 dating is used to confirm this, but the others are completely independent from C14 dating, yet they correlate.

If all but a remanent of life was killed all at once, then the amount of C14 in specimens at death would have much less than predicted by the
uniformitarian model and eventually close to zero (i.e.- 50,000 rcybp)
The fossil record and geologicFur "time eras" speak plainly of a world wide
deluge. Therefore we should well account for this rapid C14 drop.

Besides from the noachian flood being falsified, how would this work? How would exposure to water affect the ratio of C14 to C12 in organisms?
Furthermore, this would be indicated by the results no longer correlating with the other methods, especially not with river varves, because these cannot possibly predate the flood if the stratum on which the rivers are located was laid down by the flood as you say. There should be a major break then, not a nice continuity.
That also means that the varve formation would have to have occured at least ten times as fast in the recent past as it happens today, in order to account for 40,000 varves whcih all would have to have formed post flood...and green river even has millons of layers, if i recall correctly.

Whole fish are fossilized, not just the bones.
Also, birds don't sink to any depth because of their low density structure
(buoyancy). What explanation would you provide for these numerous bird
fossils being formed on the bed of a deep lake?

They should not sink in a global flood then either, should they?

And whole catfish carcasses
transgressing several layers of "varve" strata?

Source?

No problems. The circle is that any extended chronologies are pieced
together using C14 dating, and then used to verify that C14 dating is valid
as an absolute dating method.

No.
First off, the C14 measurements are not the only method by which the tree rings are matched, there is a matching of the actual rings as well.

Furthermore, if the speed of C14 decay had changed, then two tree ring samples with a C14 match should still be of equal age, as both would have been affected equally.
It would be a huge coincidence if the growth of tree rings in at least two different regions of the world would be accellerated by the same degree as C14 decay, wouldn't it? Well, and then it also matches coral growth and river varves - all coincidence?

If their the same relative age, then C14 results would correlate.
Again, assuming a uniform C14 decay for an extended period is just a wild
guess.

Then please explain the mechanism which put the other independent methods off by the same amouth respectively...else the very best explaination for all this is that the speed of decay and formation of varves/layers/rings happened at constant speed.

Because of the fossils it contains.

Please be more specific.

Because a ocean scenario strengthens the case for a wide spread flood. The finely differentiated evaporite strata further strengthens the case.

How can a cataclysmic event produce such fine strata?

And then
the numerous marine animals trapped in the same strata is icing on the
cake.

Hardly - this is exactly what the conventional model predicts as well.

You have by admission, precluded the possibly of a young earth, and therefore made the assumption of an old earth. By using instruments that supposedly only measure long ages, possible young ages are precluded by assumption. It's circular reasoning.

No - the evidence convinced me of an old age. The instruments would have indicated if the sample was too young to be dated. You keep ignoring this.

Sure they could be formed rapidly as a ocean recedes and the land drains.
If the elevation gradient is low, then you would expect water to drain in a
meandering pattern.

There wouldn't have been nearly enough water for this. A single drainage event doesn't cut such rivers today either.
Moreover, how did they get buried by another few hundred metres of sediments afterwards? If they had been formed at the end of the flood, they should be exposed to the surface by now, or covered by some mudslides at most - but not hundreds of metres of sediments, including things like other limestone layers.

Also, lime sets very quickly when combined with
alluvial gravel and sand...this is how modern concrete is made.

But not the kind of limestone which can be found - which is clearly produced by cocoliths, not by carbonate dissolved in the water. Furthermore, many of the deposits are very pure, there is very little gravel and sand in them. E.g. the white cliffs of Dover. 480 metres of cocolith limestone. There is no known mechanism by which this could have formed within 6000 years.


Anyway, what could possibly convince you of an old earth?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Apologies for the delay...

Quote:
Because each uses the same measurement tool to extend further than
4500 years ago: C14 dating.

That's simply not true. Tree ring sequences are matched based on the actual patterns and C14 dating is used to confirm this, but the others are completely independent from C14 dating, yet they correlate.

Quote:
If all but a remanent of life was killed all at once, then the amount of C14 in specimens at death would have much less than predicted by the
uniformitarian model and eventually close to zero (i.e.- 50,000 rcybp)
The fossil record and geologicFur "time eras" speak plainly of a world wide
deluge. Therefore we should well account for this rapid C14 drop.

Besides from the noachian flood being falsified, how would this work? How would exposure to water affect the ratio of C14 to C12 in organisms?
Furthermore, this would be indicated by the results no longer correlating with the other methods, especially not with river varves, because these cannot possibly predate the flood if the stratum on which the rivers are located was laid down by the flood as you say. There should be a major break then, not a nice continuity.
That also means that the varve formation would have to have occured at least ten times as fast in the recent past as it happens today, in order to account for 40,000 varves whcih all would have to have formed post flood...and green river even has millons of layers, if i recall correctly.


Quote:
Whole fish are fossilized, not just the bones.
Also, birds don't sink to any depth because of their low density structure
(buoyancy). What explanation would you provide for these numerous bird
fossils being formed on the bed of a deep lake?

They should not sink in a global flood then either, should they?

Quote:
And whole catfish carcasses
transgressing several layers of "varve" strata?

Source?

Quote:
No problems. The circle is that any extended chronologies are pieced
together using C14 dating, and then used to verify that C14 dating is valid
as an absolute dating method.

No.
First off, the C14 measurements are not the only method by which the tree rings are matched, there is a matching of the actual rings as well.

Furthermore, if the speed of C14 decay had changed, then two tree ring samples with a C14 match should still be of equal age, as both would have been affected equally.
It would be a huge coincidence if the growth of tree rings in at least two different regions of the world would be accellerated by the same degree as C14 decay, wouldn't it? Well, and then it also matches coral growth and river varves - all coincidence?

Quote:
If their the same relative age, then C14 results would correlate.
Again, assuming a uniform C14 decay for an extended period is just a wild
guess.
Then please explain the mechanism which put the other independent methods off by the same amouth respectively...else the very best explaination for all this is that the speed of decay and formation of varves/layers/rings happened at constant speed.

Quote:
Because of the fossils it contains.
Please be more specific.

Quote:
Because a ocean scenario strengthens the case for a wide spread flood. The finely differentiated evaporite strata further strengthens the case.
How can a cataclysmic event produce such fine strata?

Quote:
And then
the numerous marine animals trapped in the same strata is icing on the
cake.
Hardly - this is exactly what the conventional model predicts as well.

Quote:
You have by admission, precluded the possibly of a young earth, and therefore made the assumption of an old earth. By using instruments that supposedly only measure long ages, possible young ages are precluded by assumption. It's circular reasoning.

No - the evidence convinced me of an old age. The instruments would have indicated if the sample was too young to be dated. You keep ignoring this.

Quote:
Sure they could be formed rapidly as a ocean recedes and the land drains.
If the elevation gradient is low, then you would expect water to drain in a
meandering pattern.

There wouldn't have been nearly enough water for this. A single drainage event doesn't cut such rivers today either.
Moreover, how did they get buried by another few hundred metres of sediments afterwards? If they had been formed at the end of the flood, they should be exposed to the surface by now, or covered by some mudslides at most - but not hundreds of metres of sediments, including things like other limestone layers.

Quote:
Also, lime sets very quickly when combined with
alluvial gravel and sand...this is how modern concrete is made.

But not the kind of limestone which can be found - which is clearly produced by cocoliths, not by carbonate dissolved in the water. Furthermore, many of the deposits are very pure, there is very little gravel and sand in them. E.g. the white cliffs of Dover. 480 metres of cocolith limestone. There is no known mechanism by which this could have formed within 6000 years.


Anyway, what could possibly convince you of an old earth?

That's simply not true. Tree ring sequences are matched based on the actual patterns and C14 dating is used to confirm this, but the others are completely independent from C14 dating, yet they correlate.

But the sequences represent no absolute dating value.

Besides from the noachian flood being falsified, how would this work? How would exposure to water affect the ratio of C14 to C12 in organisms?
Furthermore, this would be indicated by the results no longer correlating with the other methods, especially not with river varves, because these cannot possibly predate the flood if the stratum on which the rivers are located was laid down by the flood as you say. There should be a major break then, not a nice continuity.
That also means that the varve formation would have to have occured at least ten times as fast in the recent past as it happens today, in order to account for 40,000 varves whcih all would have to have formed post flood...and green river even has millons of layers, if i recall correctly.

The Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the

atmosphereâ€â€organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and

oil shale deposits. Thus a rapid decrease c12 in the c14/c12 ratio is

expected in the flood model. Taking this into account, indicated c14 dates

drop significantly

I find it hard to accept that millions of fine varve strata could stay

sequentially intact over thousands or millions of years.

They should not sink in a global flood then either, should they?

Just to clarify, I don't think the varve strata represents the worldwide flood

we've been discussing.

Source?

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=530

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/ ... nriver.asp

No.

First off, the C14 measurements are not the only method by which the tree rings are matched, there is a matching of the actual rings as well.

Furthermore, if the speed of C14 decay had changed, then two tree ring samples with a C14 match should still be of equal age, as both would have been affected equally.
It would be a huge coincidence if the growth of tree rings in at least two different regions of the world would be accellerated by the same degree as C14 decay, wouldn't it? Well, and then it also matches coral growth and river varves - all coincidence?

Matching rings, varves and coral to c14 dates is just comparing relative

dates. There's no absolute dating value to any of them.

There wouldn't have been nearly enough water for this. A single drainage event doesn't cut such rivers today either.
Moreover, how did they get buried by another few hundred metres of sediments afterwards? If they had been formed at the end of the flood, they should be exposed to the surface by now, or covered by some mudslides at most - but not hundreds of metres of sediments, including things like other limestone layers.

Everything your explaining here is the fairly turbulent end of the flood, as

sea levels waxed and waned until they reached equilibrium.

Do you know off hand what "geologic period" the strata this "river" is carved

into is assigned? My guess is it's somewhere close to the "K/T Boundary"


Quote:
Also, lime sets very quickly when combined with
alluvial gravel and sand...this is how modern concrete is made.

But not the kind of limestone which can be found - which is clearly produced by cocoliths, not by carbonate dissolved in the water. Furthermore, many of the deposits are very pure, there is very little gravel and sand in them. E.g. the white cliffs of Dover. 480 metres of cocolith limestone. There is no known mechanism by which this could have formed within 6000 years

.

Sure there is...slowly drying ocean beds. This is the same way The Permian

and Pennsylvanian strata were formed.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

The Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphereâ€â€organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. Thus a rapid decrease c12 in the c14/c12 ratio is expected in the flood model.

How does one follow from the other? The c14/c12 ratio is what is important in nature, because we know how much there is compared to c12. Any sudden decrease in the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere would cause an equal drop in the amount of C14, not affecting the ratio.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote:
The Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphereâ€â€organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. Thus a rapid decrease c12 in the c14/c12 ratio is expected in the flood model.

How does one follow from the other? The c14/c12 ratio is what is important in nature, because we know how much there is compared to c12. Any sudden decrease in the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere would cause an equal drop in the amount of C14, not affecting the ratio.

There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13

(both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present

in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 -

0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every

1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is

based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14

(14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic

ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:

14N + n => 14C + p

So C14 amounts are independent of the process that creates C12.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

See there is this assumption that you've made, that it is possible for so much of the carboniferous matter on the planet to suddenly disappear under the earth, since you also seem to think that quadrillions of tons of sediment can just appear out of nowhere.

It doesn't matter what happened with the C14 during the 'flood,' since the entirety of strata could not have been deposited by a single flood event. It can't happen physically, because such geologic activity happening in such a short time span would release more than enough energy to melt those levels.

Your claim of a global flood is at its base absurd.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

The Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the

atmosphereâ€â€organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and

oil shale deposits. Thus a rapid decrease c12 in the c14/c12 ratio is

expected in the flood model. Taking this into account, indicated c14 dates

drop significantly

I find it hard to accept that millions of fine varve strata could stay

sequentially intact over thousands or millions of years.

SyntaxVorlon:

How does one follow from the other? The c14/c12 ratio is what is important in nature, because we know how much there is compared to c12. Any sudden decrease in the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere would cause an equal drop in the amount of C14, not affecting the ratio.

charlie:

There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13

(both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present

in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 -

0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every

1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is

based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14

(14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic

ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:

14N + n => 14C + p

So C14 amounts are independent of the process that creates C12.

SyntaxVorlon

See there is this assumption that you've made, that it is possible for so much of the carboniferous matter on the planet to suddenly disappear under the earth, since you also seem to think that quadrillions of tons of sediment can just appear out of nowhere.

It doesn't matter what happened with the C14 during the 'flood,' since the entirety of strata could not have been deposited by a single flood event. It can't happen physically, because such geologic activity happening in such a short time span would release more than enough energy to melt those levels.

Your claim of a global flood is at its base absurd.

How do you propose the Permian and Pennsylvanian strata were laid down.

Slowly over time, or rapidly from hydraulic processes?


Do you disagree these strata represent the removal of massive amounts of

C12 producing/ exchanging organisms from the atmosphere.


And fossiliferous limestone? How do you propose these strata were laid

down.

Interestingly, the AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw

measurement of the C14/C12 ratio from approximately 1% of the modern

value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from

about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this

improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to

date dramatically older fossil material. The big surprise, however, was that

no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of

the modern value. Since most of the scientists involved assumed the

standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the

C14 they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some

source of modern carbon with its high level of C14. Therefore they mounted

a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such

contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor

sources of C14 contamination, there still remained a significant level of

C14â€â€typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrumentâ€â€in

samples that should have been utterly "C14-dead," including many from the

deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.

In view of the profound significance of these AMS C14 measurements, the

ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken

AMS C14 analyses of such fossil material. The first set of samples

consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal

Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten

samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record,

three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These

samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the

world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the

peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each

geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent

modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc

for Pennsylvanian. Little difference in C14 level as a function of position in

the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the

entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cretaceous is the product of the

Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common C14 age.

Figure 1. Histogram representation of C14 analysis of coal samples.


It's amazing the drastic difference in results that occurs between one's

choice of dating method.

What do you make of the AMS C14 dating method's failure to discover C14

"dead" fossil samples?

Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformityâ€â€that is, periods of uplift and erosionâ€â€at the various interfaces.

Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.


1. Stephen Jay Gould: "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" American Journal of Science, Vol. 263, (March 1965). p. 227.
2. Edgar B. Heylmun: "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism!", Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 19, January 1971, p. 35.
3. David Jorafsky: Soviet Marxism and Natural Science (New York, Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 12.
4. Henry M. Morris: The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1972) 114 pp. [Editor's note: Referenced book is out of print. "Genesis Record" book lists 100 reasons why the Flood must be understood as worldwide.
Henry M. Morris: The Genesis Record (San Diego, Institute for Creation Research, 1976) 716 pp. ]
5. F. H. T. Rhodes, H. S. Zim and P. R. Shaffer: Fossils (New York, Golden Press, 1962). p. 10.
6. O. H. Schindewolf, "Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms", American Journal of Science, Vol. 255, June 1957, p. 394.
7. H. D. Hedberg: "The Stratigraphic Panorama", Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 72, April 1961, pp. 499-518.
8. C. O. Dunbar: Historical Geology (New York, Wiley, 1960), p. 47.
9. See The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris (Nutley, N. J., Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961), for a much more extensive treatment of the various topics discussed in this brief paper. Available also through the Institute for Creation Research.



Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

President, ICR (Died Recently...see separate post)

In light of the aforementioned reasoning, I find the rapid formation of the

geologic column, from the upper boundary of the Precambrian to K/T

boundry, completely plausible.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Can you give me a precis? I really don't see any evidence in that little article for the rapid formation of hundreds of feet of ROCK!

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Can you give me a precis? I really don't see any evidence in that little article for the rapid formation of hundreds of feet of ROCK!

Remember, it was mud and biological sediment to begin with. With time,

pressure and drying, it turned to rock.

 

[jwu]

But the sequences represent no absolute dating value.

Deviations are possible, but you still haven't explained why they correlate.
Them being absolute or close to absolute dates is a very simple and conclusive explaination for the correlation.

The Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the

atmosphereâ€â€organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and

oil shale deposits. Thus a rapid decrease c12 in the c14/c12 ratio is

expected in the flood model. Taking this into account, indicated c14 dates

drop significantly

Do you disagree these strata represent the removal of massive amounts of

C12 producing/ exchanging organisms from the atmosphere.

Ehm...they do not produce C12 or C14. They exchange it with the atmosphere, and them being removed from the atmosphere has as much effect on its ratio of C12/C14 as me leaving the room has. Nothing.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=530

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/ ... nriver.asp

Storm varves look different than annual varves, i've posted an image which compares the two earlier. However, even if that wasn't the case, you'd need three layers forming every two days, not one per year, in order to squeeze this into the 4000 years since the flood. And once again there is the problem of correlation...

Do you know off hand what "geologic period" the strata this "river" is carved

into is assigned? My guess is it's somewhere close to the "K/T Boundary"

No, i have pictures of such channels in permian, devonian and pleistocene strata.

Sure there is...slowly drying ocean beds. This is the same way The Permian
a nd Pennsylvanian strata were formed.

No way - the dover cliffs are not the result of dried calcite water. They are the shells of small organisms which can be seen under a microscope, hence my mention of cocoliths.

Interestingly, the AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw

measurement of the C14/C12 ratio from approximately 1% of the modern

value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from

about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this

improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to

date dramatically older fossil material. The big surprise, however, was that

no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of

the modern value. Since most of the scientists involved assumed the

standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the

C14 they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some

source of modern carbon with its high level of C14. Therefore they mounted

a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such

contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor

sources of C14 contamination, there still remained a significant level of

C14â€â€typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrumentâ€â€in

samples that should have been utterly "C14-dead," including many from the

deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.

In view of the profound significance of these AMS C14 measurements, the

ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken

AMS C14 analyses of such fossil material. The first set of samples

consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal

Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten

samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record,

three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These

samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the

world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the

peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each

geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent

modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc

for Pennsylvanian. Little difference in C14 level as a function of position in

the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the

entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cretaceous is the product of the

Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common C14 age.

Actually this is explained...the measurable excess C14 in these cases correlates with radioactivity in the surrounding rocks, it is produced in situ. And coal without C14 has been found - in regions with low surrounding radioactivity.

Remember, it was mud and biological sediment to begin with. With time,

pressure and drying, it turned to rock.

The key word there is "time"...


Again, what could possibly convince you that no global flood took place 4000 years ago or that the world is old?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

How do you propose the Permian and Pennsylvanian strata were laid down.

Slowly over time, or rapidly from hydraulic processes?

Um, slowly over time from hydrologic processes, trees die, fall over, form peat, trees grow on top, die... until a significant amount of peat forms on top and squishes the bottom peat until it metamorphoses, and I'm not talking about a couple of trees falling down on top, I'm saying hundreds of newtons per square centimeter over the course of thousands of years.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

charlie:

Do you disagree these strata represent the removal of massive amounts of

C12 producing/ exchanging organisms from the atmosphere.

jwu:

Ehm...they do not produce C12 or C14. They exchange it with the atmosphere, and them being removed from the atmosphere has as much effect on its ratio of C12/C14 as me leaving the room has. Nothing.

In light of The First Law, how do you account for all the carbon removed the

cycle. What replaces the carbon that was in the cycle, but now is

trapped under 1000's of feet of soil, and removed from the cycle (carbon

sink). There had to of been a huge C12 drop in the cycle when these strata

were deposited. Same applies for limestone (calcium carbonate).

No way - the dover cliffs are not the result of dried calcite water. They are the shells of small organisms which can be seen under a microscope, hence my mention of cocoliths.

Limestone forms either by direct crystallization from water (usually seawater)

or by accumulation of shell and shell fragments. In the first case, it carries

a record of the chemical composition of seawater and it provides evidence of

how that composition has changed with time. Limestone usually forms in

shallow water less than 20 m (70 ft) deep and thus also provides important

geological information on the variation in sea level in the past.

All limestone forms from the precipitation of calcium carbonate from water.

Calcium carbonate leaves solutions in many ways and each way produces a

different kind of limestone. All the different ways can be classified into two

major groups: either with or without the aid of a living organism.

Actually this is explained...the measurable excess C14 in these cases correlates with radioactivity in the surrounding rocks, it is produced in situ. And coal without C14 has been found - in regions with low surrounding radioactivity.

The researchers were aware of this possibility, so the first set of samples

consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal

Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten

samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record,

three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. Are you saying

all three strata were surrounded by these very close levels of radioactivity

even though their separated by hundreds and thousands of meters? The

correlations are remarkably tight.

jwu:

Again, what could possibly convince you that no global flood took place 4000 years ago or that the world is old?

Evidence of an old world that stands up to scrutiny and an Old World

geologic model that makes more sense than The Flood model. Sorry, the

first time you asked, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

charlie:

How do you propose the Permian and Pennsylvanian strata were laid down.

Slowly over time, or rapidly from hydraulic processes?

SyntaxVorlon

Um, slowly over time from hydrologic processes, trees die, fall over, form peat, trees grow on top, die... until a significant amount of peat forms on top and squishes the bottom peat until it metamorphoses, and I'm not talking about a couple of trees falling down on top, I'm saying hundreds of newtons per square centimeter over the course of thousands of years.

And the Permian Strata? These are marine organisms.


Also, the majority of the plants in the Pennsylvanian strata are tropical. And

how do you explain: the inclusion of numerous marine fossils such as fish,

molluscs, brachiopods, tubeworms, upright tree trunks which often

penetrate tens of feet perpendicular to stratification....

The Pennsylvanian strata as a whole reflects catastrophism versus

uniformity.