The Dating Game In Death Valley

How old is the Ubehebe Crater? Estimates seem to be all over the map but one thing is for sure, geologists think it was a fairly recent event, recent enough for the possibility of happening again!

Science Daily reports

“Up to now, geologists were vague on the age of the 600-foot deep crater, which formed when a rising plume of magma hit a pocket of underground water, creating an explosion.”

“The most common estimate was about 6,000 years, based partly on Native American artifacts found under debris. Now, a team based at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has used isotopes in rocks blown out of the crater to show that it formed just 800 years ago, around the year 1200.”

“That geologic youth means it probably still has some vigor; moreover, the scientists think there is still enough groundwater and magma around for another eventual reaction. The study appears in the current issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.”

This event which happened perhaps in 1200AD, replicates an atom bomb going off so park dwellers should be warned as this event could still happen again! How reliable do you think these old earth assumptions are when determining dates?  Geologists were over 700 percent wrong in the previous estimate.

This goes to show the need to tell the public that they are using “estimates” rather than telling them, X did this 5 million years ago, and Y happened 10 million and because of 5a, Z happened 100,000 years ago.  Rather just explain to the public that these are dating estimates using assumptions.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “The Dating Game In Death Valley

  1. How reliable do you think these old earth assumptions are when determining dates? Geologists were over 700 percent wrong in the previous estimate.

    The first thing to notice here is that the previous date was not estimated by any radioactive dating method, nor by any geological strata, but only by the presence of certain human artifacts nearby.

    So, Michael, how is is evidence against an old earth?

    .

    Michael also apparently missed the fact that the article says the new date was established by radiometric analysis. So he accepts radiometric data in the case when it suits him, but not in other cases where it would contradict his beliefs. The irony, Michael, the irony! Too bad you can’t see it.

    .

    Confutatis maledictis,
    Flammis acribus addictis.

  2. http://crev.info/?s=cambrian+explosion

    *

    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth02.asp

    [snip]

    12. How does evolution explain the Cambrian explosion of every major
    animal body plan in a single rock system? According to evolutionary age
    assignments, this profusion of forms occured in the lower Cambrian.
    Stephen Jay Gould writes: “…an elegant study, published in 1993, clearly
    restricts this period of phyletic flowering to a mere five million years.”
    (Scientific American, October 1994, p. 89.) Was this enough time for
    evolution to perform all that invention?

  3. I meant to post the following on this thread:

    http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp

    All radioisotope dating methods assume

    a) no decay product was present initially or that initial quantities can be accurately estimated
    b) the decay system was closed to outside influences through the years and
    c) the decay rate was constant over time.

    What conditions have violated these assumptions?

  4. As in his other comment,[1] David should check his facts. Wikipedia might be aw good place to start, Creationist sources have no compunction against misleading and lying.[2]

    Scientists are well aware of precautions to be taken with radiometric dating. And, of course, several methods, such as “three daughters” show up errors in their readings.[3]

    ==============

    [1] See Olorin comments under “How the Cambrian Explosion Has Been Amazing,.” supra.

    [2] Martin Luther said that a small lie in the service of the Lord is no sin. Hmm.

    [3] David, please briefly describe the “storage effect” and how it affects radiocarbon dating.

  5. Sigh. Apparently David is another of Michael’s one-shot wonders.

    Like the bear in the forest who eats, shoots, and leaves, he reads, cites creationist swill, and absquatulates.

    ‘Twas ever thus.

  6. . . . . . . . . . .The Dating Game In Death Valley

    Don’t we call that “necrophilia”? And isn’t it illegal? Hmm.

  7. Ho hum. Michael can’t seem to fin d any new material that can be twisted into seeming to support creationism.

    Meanwhile, in other news, human embryonic stem cells are showing positive results.

    Advanced Cell Technologies, Marlborough, Mass., injected human embryonic stem cells into the eyes of two patients with different forms of blindness. Ten more patients will be enrolled, with final results expected next year.

    See Nature, 481:414 (26 Jan 201`2).

  8. Biblical evolution common descent these terms in modern science are not contradictory, worldwide fossil markers and worldwide floods
    Hypothesis is scientific, Atheism implies a rejection of theistic belief not an absence of it. Some thoughts to ponder.

  9. Richatr5d,, if by “biblical evolution” you mean theistic evolution. then itv does not contradict common descent. But, in that case, it is vacuous, and cannot tell us anything at all about the world. So why bother?

    OTOH, fossil markers are incompatible with worldwide floods. As are a number of other data, such as that such a flood would require 80 times as much water as the earth’s total supply.

    Atheism does require an absence of belief in supernatural deities. When you’re not sure, it’s called agnosticism. There is a story about a dyslexic insomniac agnostics who lies awake at night wondering whether there is a Dog..

  10. Olorin, I mean Biblical Evolution by common descent

    not theistic

    So fossil markers are compatible worldwide but can only be explained by a local flood that’s an oxymoron or

    Does your atheism “require” an absence of belief, because then you have constrained yourself beyond simple rejection and have believed yourself or others. What are you trusting in then I mean? Evolution?
    It is simpler than that reject God or gods or god, nothing too do with faith. That’s apistos or no belief, no knowledge is simply what you have described, not no God

  11. Read your reply again and I mean atheism implied a rejection of God or gods but not His or their absence. That can only be a lack of faith but this as well can not describe what you may believe then if you require an absence of belief you are vacuous and cannot tell us anything at all about the world. It would be more real if you stated your faith openly because no one believes in nothing.

  12. Olorin, I mean Biblical Evolution by common descent
    </blockquote.

    If there is such a concept, then you made it up. It is meaningless.

    So fossil markers are compatible worldwide but can only be explained by a local flood that’s an oxymoron

    It’s not an oxymoron; it’s a false dichotomy. Your fallacy is that you assume that if A does not imply B (worldwide flood), then A must imply C (local flood). Not true.

    It is simpler than that reject God or gods or god, nothing too do with faith

    Sorry, that makes no sense at all. .

    if you require an absence of belief you are vacuous and cannot tell us anything at all about the world. It would be more real if you stated your faith openly because no one believes in nothing.

    Atheism is not a lack of belief in anything. It is a lack of belief in supernatural entities. As Richard Dawkins is fond of saying, “We are all atheists; I just happen to believe in one less god than you do.”

    As for myself, I do not consider being Lutheran the same as being an atheist. Although Michael does.

  13. Olorin,

    A new concept is not meaningless if it leads to real evidence. Biblical Evolution and the original species through common descent.

    Worldwide index fossil + fossil formation by rapid burial = worldwide flood. The water is here just look for it and don,t try to cover all the high mountains when there were none yet

    The problem people have with Jesus Christ is their is only room for one god on their throne, and that god has to repent. So no you do not have zero god there is no such reality

  14. A new concept is not meaningless if it leads to real evidence. Biblical Evolution and the original species through common descent.

    True. But it is meaningless if it contradicts itself. The Bible plainly says that certain groups of plants and animals were created in bunches, all together. This negates common ancestry.

    Worldwide index fossil + fossil formation by rapid burial = worldwide flood.

    (1) What the deuce is a “worldwide index fossil”?? (2) Many fossils did not undergo rapid burial. (3) Why does rapid burial that did occur imply a flood? Volcanism, for instance. Peat bogs. Tar pits, such as La Brea.

    The water is here just look for it and don,t try to cover all the high mountains when there were none yet

    Why were there no high mountains yet? If the Ark ended up on Mt Ararat, there was at least one high mountain. What evidence do you have that high mountains did not, or could not have, existed at the time of a putative worldwide flood?

    The problem people have with Jesus Christ is their is only room for one god on their throne, and that god has to repent. So no you do not have zero god there is no such reality

    This makes no sense. Sorry. Does not compute.

  15. A new concept is not meaningless if it leads to real evidence. Biblical Evolution and the original species through common descent.

    Agreed but it depends on your definition of terms for common and descent i guess your terms will be different than mine. How about take the biblical part out for you and say it like this Biological evolution of species from original ancestral species that were distinct in morphology and ecological domain. The definition you have of scripture is not really with scientific terms why don’t you read and try to hypothesize it using terms that are commonly used to describe these things.

    index fossils found worldwide + fossil formation by methods of rapid burial = worldwide catastrophe’s does that make sense

    give me an good example for this ” Many fossils did not undergo rapid burial”

    Your right there is no biblical evidence that they did not exist during but how about before, other than the bible you have no eyewitness account either though. The unknown sized mountains were a range ararat not singular mountain. I take it you agree that the water is here though if the hills were not excessively high. As for evidence of a water covered earth there is some in various places.

    Atheism is more today than it was so depending on whose definition you use, it is like a atheist trying to say what a Christian believer is they would never use the Bible’s definition of the common term today. I guess I am doing the same thing but the only reason is you have given what seem to me illogical definitions. There is no positive faith aspect but a negative, this would seem to be a double negative Atheism is, No belief in a God/s. If I break it down it begs the question of what the person does believe. So there is an unknown positive belief missing which I suppose is in self determination of things that pertain to philosophical questions. In my experience this is never admitted by those who call themselves atheists. Atheists often manifest a belief in anything from Aliens to strict Humanism. What constitutes as a religion of faith or belief. The meaning of the word faith Biblically is different then most unfamiliar with it describe. The bible says atheists have god’s that are non deistic would this make sense that an atheist by not believing in a deistic god has not excluded belief in non-deistic gods. Again now what does non-deistic god mean, I would suggest a authority that is higher than self that determines the answers for one of philosophical questions. An idol would be any form of worship to that particular god. Self worship or worship of man is very evident in the world around us today. Hopefully this helps.

  16. Agreed but it depends on your definition of terms for common and descent i guess your terms will be different than mine.

    I’m using the standard definition that has been universal since Darwin. Common descent means that all living organisms descend from one or a few original organisms.

    How about take the biblical part out for you and say it like this Biological evolution of species from original ancestral species that were distinct in morphology and ecological domain.

    If you take out the “biblical” part, you are left with standard evolution, not a new concept.

    Then you should look up the standard definition of a species. Where did you come up with that monster?

    .

    You seem to be hopelessly adrift in biology. I would suggest a reading an elementary text book before attempting mass redefinition of scientific terms.. Miller and Levine’s “Biology” (Prentice Hall, 2004) provides an excellent introduction.. In the UK, Mackean’s “GCSE Biology” (Hodder Education, 3d Rev Ed, 2002) is in wide use.

  17. Your right I am no scientist guaranteed but interested in these things. They may be somewhat inconsequential for the most part since we are possibly miles apart in religious bias but it is interesting that if the definition is standard evolution I was unaware that it would fit that clearly within a biblical hypothesis. The question is just how few . Thanks for your help, by the way do you have a degree in Biology or something else? and is your real name Olorin?

  18. Richard, if you are “interested” in science—or any other subject—then you need to put in a little reading to understand its basic concepts. Science builds upon previous work, so that its results accumulate. Whereas, if you read a bunch of creationist papers, they all start from square one, where square one is total ignorance of the subject.

    Even theology suffers. A lecture I attended recently bemoaned that today’s religious discussions utterly ignore the scholarly investigations and debates among theologians. So most of the points made and the arguments advanced have already been discussed for hundreds of years by thousands of knowledgeable people. .

    .

    My background is a graduate degree in what today would be called systems science, although the state of the art in 1959 was very primitive. I got into computers early, writing my first program in 1958.

    But my actual career was as a patent attorney for IBM Research and for a bunch of other clients in a number of different disciplines. About a decade ago, I gravitated toward bioinformatics, which required learning a whole new scientific discipline. A lot of bioinformatics is grounded in evolution, and vice versa. Also, the KItzmiller v Dover case in 2005 piqued an interest in intelligent design and other forms of pseudoscience. This interest required reading up on the philosophy of science, an area that seems to be of interest to very few working scientists, unfortunately.

    I retired for the third, and hopefully last, time in 2006 to return to my high-school major subject, music, in an amateur status. However, I retain membership in the Science & Social Policy committee of thew American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

    Olorin is the birth name of Gandalf Greybeard in Lord of the Rings. It has been my e-mail name and nom de clavier for 30 years, since 1981. My first PC was an Altair, with a modified IBM Mag-Card Selectric typewriter and a Pennywhistle 300 baud modem.

    ————————–

    There is a book on the history of science which also describes some of the philosophical aspects, and is highly regarded in the industry. Bowler & Morus, Making Modern Science (University of Chicago Press 2005). It has two sections (a) chapters on the history of individual advances, and (b) chapters on “themes”, such as ideology, religion, war, and technology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s