What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

[Stripe]

Spoiler

C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Abstract

A remarkable discovery made over the past twenty-five years is that organic samples from every level in the Phanerozoic portion of the geological record, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, display significant and reproducible amounts of 14C. Because the lifetime of 14C is so brief, these AMS measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of million of years to this part of the rock record. With a half-life of 5730 years, 14C decays to levels undetectable by any currently available technique after only 100,000 years (17.5 half-lives). After one million years (175 half-lives), the amount of 14C remaining is only 3 × 10-53 of the initial 14C concentration—so vanishingly small as to exclude even a single 14C atom in a beginning mass of 14C equal to the mass of the earth itself. However, in samples with uniformitarian ages between one and 500 million years, the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature documents scores of examples of 14C/C ratios in the range 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio. The lower limit of this range is a factor of ten above the detection threshold of most AMS laboratories in the world. Another noteworthy observation is that the 14C/C ratio of these samples appears to be uncorrelated with their position in the geological record. RATE’s own measurement of 14C levels in ten coal samples using one of the world’s best AMS laboratories strongly confirms both this reported range in 14C/C ratio and the lack of dependence of this ratio on position in the rock record. In terms of 14C age, if one makes the assumption, as is normally done, the 14C/C ratio in these fossilized organisms when they died was close to that of today’s atmosphere, the range in 14C/C ratio of 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern value corresponds to 14C ages between 44,000 and 57,000 years. A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all but the very youngest fossil material in the geological record was buried contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been a major global cataclysm. The simultaneous destruction of so much life implies, however, that dramatically more total carbon (now in the form of coal, oil, and oil shale) had to be present in the earth’s biosphere prior to this cataclysmic event. In this case using today’s atmospheric 14C/C ratio as the initial 14C/C ratio for this fossil material almost certainly would not be a proper assumption. Using a lower, more realistic estimate for the biospheric 14C/C ratio prior to this cataclysm reduces the actual 14C age by roughly a factor of ten from about 50,000 years to a value of about 5000 years. This latter age estimate, of course, is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the life on the planet, both plants and animals, in a single brief cataclysm some four to five millennia ago. Finally, our 14C RATE project has measured 14C/C ratios above the AMS threshold in diamonds from a variety of locations. Although more confirmation is needed to justify a strong claim in this regard, these measurements appear to limit the age of the physical earth itself to the range of thousands (as opposed to billions) of years.

Peer-reviewed evidence.

Just to show that dog cares not at all about peer-reviewed evidence.

Neither does he know how rocks are formed.

His sole purpose for being here is to be a troll. :troll:

 

[Jonahdog]

Spoiler

C Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Abstract

A remarkable discovery made over the past twenty-five years is that organic samples from every level in the Phanerozoic portion of the geological record, when tested by highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) methods, display significant and reproducible amounts of 14C. Because the lifetime of 14C is so brief, these AMS measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of million of years to this part of the rock record. With a half-life of 5730 years, 14C decays to levels undetectable by any currently available technique after only 100,000 years (17.5 half-lives). After one million years (175 half-lives), the amount of 14C remaining is only 3 × 10-53 of the initial 14C concentration—so vanishingly small as to exclude even a single 14C atom in a beginning mass of 14C equal to the mass of the earth itself. However, in samples with uniformitarian ages between one and 500 million years, the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature documents scores of examples of 14C/C ratios in the range 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio. The lower limit of this range is a factor of ten above the detection threshold of most AMS laboratories in the world. Another noteworthy observation is that the 14C/C ratio of these samples appears to be uncorrelated with their position in the geological record. RATE’s own measurement of 14C levels in ten coal samples using one of the world’s best AMS laboratories strongly confirms both this reported range in 14C/C ratio and the lack of dependence of this ratio on position in the rock record. In terms of 14C age, if one makes the assumption, as is normally done, the 14C/C ratio in these fossilized organisms when they died was close to that of today’s atmosphere, the range in 14C/C ratio of 0.1–0.5 percent of the modern value corresponds to 14C ages between 44,000 and 57,000 years. A straightforward but startling inference from these AMS data is that all but the very youngest fossil material in the geological record was buried contemporaneously only thousands of years ago in what must have been a major global cataclysm. The simultaneous destruction of so much life implies, however, that dramatically more total carbon (now in the form of coal, oil, and oil shale) had to be present in the earth’s biosphere prior to this cataclysmic event. In this case using today’s atmospheric 14C/C ratio as the initial 14C/C ratio for this fossil material almost certainly would not be a proper assumption. Using a lower, more realistic estimate for the biospheric 14C/C ratio prior to this cataclysm reduces the actual 14C age by roughly a factor of ten from about 50,000 years to a value of about 5000 years. This latter age estimate, of course, is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the life on the planet, both plants and animals, in a single brief cataclysm some four to five millennia ago. Finally, our 14C RATE project has measured 14C/C ratios above the AMS threshold in diamonds from a variety of locations. Although more confirmation is needed to justify a strong claim in this regard, these measurements appear to limit the age of the physical earth itself to the range of thousands (as opposed to billions) of years.

Peer-reviewed evidence.

Just to show that dog cares not at all about peer-reviewed evidence.

Neither does he know how rocks are formed.

His sole purpose for being here is to be a troll. :troll:

Stripe, a citation to the abstract you posted please. And I have asked over and over for you to enlighten us all re rock formation.

Oh, Stripey, never mind re the citation, it is from the Institute for Creation Research. Did someone mislead you and suggest that was a real science based organization. Their web site states "The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wants people to know that God’s Word can be trusted in everything it speaks about—from how and why we were made, to how the universe was formed, to how we can know God and receive all He has planned for us." It appears to be a Christian apologetics organization. Sorry Stripe, doesnt count.

 

[Jonahdog]

Why do YOU BELIEVE that the earth is billions of years old?

(And no, "because the experts say so" is not an acceptable answer).

Again... PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Hunh, so I should get information on the age of the universe from where?

 

[Right Divider]

Hunh, so I should get information on the age of the universe from where?

:french: Exactly!

Is this a really hard question for you to give the reason for your belief in billions of years?

 

[Jonahdog]

:french: Exactly!

Is this a really hard question for you to give the reason for your belief in billions of years?

Where should I get my information on the age of the universe from?

 

[7djengo7]

Wait...what, exactly, do I lose, 'dog?

<NO ANSWER>

​

​

Anyway, what would you say makes something a fact?​

​

<NO ANSWER>

​

​

​

Also, why did you write quotation marks around the word, 'belief'? What (if anything) were you trying to signify by doing so?​

​

​

<NO ANSWER>

​

​

No wonder you did not use the TOL forum's linked-quotation/direct-reply function to carry out your dud of a reaction to the questions I asked you. You chose not to even use my handle, '7djengo7', but rather, you deliberately wrote '7d', apparently hoping (in futility, of course) that maybe I'd not notice that you had reacted to my post.

7d, it is a fact that the universe is billions of years old.

LOL

What's your saying that worth, seeing as you can't even answer the question I asked you above: What would you say makes something a fact?

​

And yes, you need to see what the experts say. Have doubts? Visit your local university.

Oh, you're going to just keep repeating your "The experts say..." shtick--despite your continual stonewalling against all questioning as to why you call those whom you call "the experts", "the experts"--I see. Why would I, who am not a part of your Darwin cheerleader cult, be the least bit motivated to take your word for it (or the word of those who program you) that those whom you call "the experts" know the things you claim they know?

​

And wear a face mask, unless of course you have no concern for your fellow human beings.

LOL @ your fake compassion, you robot Nazi leftard.

BTW, how many (give a number!) human lives have you saved by wearing your mask in the last 24-hour period? Your mask-wearing is worthless, and of no benefit to anybody. Nobody owes you a shred of gratitude for wearing a mask, you gullible ape.

MAGA (Masking America's Gullible Apes)

 

[7djengo7]

Now, I cannot remember whether you are one of the people here who do not trust the experts,

Wait....why was it that you trust, and call "the experts", those whom you call "the experts"? Oh.....that's right: You never did say why. You've done nothing more than simply repeat, over and over, your shtick of calling them "the experts".

​

but it just makes some sense to me to look at what the experts claim and why.

In other words, to look at what those claim whom you call "the experts". Obviously, your line, here, is worthless to those of us who do not share your trust that those whom you call "the experts" are sources of truth and wisdom.

LOL @ your fideist first principle--your simple trust that those whom you (by your trust) call "the experts" and "science" are sources of truth and wisdom!

​

In science, that is through the peer review process in scientific journals. Thats the way it works. While people like Walt Brown are welcome to self-publish whatever they want, it does not make it good science. And yes, peer review is not perfect but without it we would be left with more Walt Browns, Andrew Wakefields (the vaccine/autism guy) and Donald Trump touting BS disease cures.

Not supposed to say that highlighted thing on TOL...I've seen people get banned for so doing.

​

But you already know what the peer reviewed science, from physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, geologists, biologists, etc. indicates. a 13-14 billion year old universe, a 4 billion+ year old earth and that 6 day creation, only several thousand years ago is not in the cards.

Why this slogan fails that you've just handed us is because, by "the peer reviewed science", all you mean is the body of falsehood and nonsense propagated by Darwin cheerleaders. Of course 6-day creation and only several thousand years ago are not in the cards dealt out by Darwin cheerleaders! Doy!

​

Your "understanding" comes from your particular religious text.

Your failure to understand anything--as well as your hatred of logic and epistemology--come from the same source whence your servile reverence for God-despising irrationalists, Darwin cheerleaders--those whom you (as you are programmed to do) erroneously call "science" and "the experts".

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not supposed to say that highlighted thing on TOL...I've seen people get banned for so doing.

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely missed it.

 

[7djengo7]

Where should I get my information on the age of the universe from?

Wait....you're not actually asking a question, here; what you're saying is purely rhetorical. You've already told us that you think you should (and that you do) get your "information on the age of the universe" from other people--those ones of 'em whom you (as you say) trust and revere as "the experts", and as "science". So, yeah....as you're not actually asking a question, do you really expect anybody to think that you are actually asking a question? Do you really expect anybody to respond to what you are saying, here, in such a way as they might respond if they thought you were actually asking a question?

What a stupid thing to say: Out of the one side of your mouth--

7d, it is a fact that the universe is billions of years old.

--yet, out of the other side--

​

Where should I get my information on the age of the universe from?​

Obviously you think you should get your "information on the age of the universe" from the Darwin cheerleaders from whom you (by trust, as you've admitted) get your "fact that the universe is billions of years old".

So, yeah....you've not actually asked a question.​

 

[7djengo7]

Thank you for pointing that out. I completely missed it.

And thanks for reading my post!

 

[7djengo7]

Why IS it a fact?

His admitted trust of those whom he calls "experts" is all he has given, and all he has to give to account for why he calls his non-fact, "fact".

 

[Stripe]

Doesnt count.

We know. You hate peer-review.

Don't come back. :loser:

 

[Right Divider]

Where should I get my information on the age of the universe from?

You've already said "that the earth is billions of years old is a fact", so it shouldn't be too hard.

Discuss how we can determine the age of the earth scientifically.

 

[Jefferson]

Peer reviewed consensus can't be trusted today because most who believe in a young earth keep it to themselves because they fear being defunded, losing tenure, etc.

 

[Stripe]

Peer reviewed consensus can't be trusted today because most who believe in a young earth keep it to themselves because they fear being defunded, losing tenure, etc.

By definition, every advance in science is made in spite of the peer-review process.

 

[Stripe]

"...the Tapeat Sandstone. That sandstone can be traced right across North America, up into Canada and across to Greenland. We see the same sandstone with the same features and the same relative position in the stack-of-pancake layers across northern Africa all the way to southern Israel."

— https://youtu.be/Q9yc3BdeSds?t=168

 

[7djengo7]

Where should I get my information on the age of the universe from?

The information on the age of the universe is the fact that the universe is less than about 10,000 years old, so, you already have that information on the age of the universe. But, if you did not already have that information, why then, naturally, the only source whence you could get that information would be someone who is dispensing that information.

See, it's not that you don't have, and need to get information on the age of the universe--it's that you have already got, and yet are irrationally at war with that information. You reject that information and, instead, you embrace disinformation on the age of the universe, by eagerly embracing the Darwin cheerleaders' silly slogan that the universe is billions of years old.

 

[Stuu]

Peer reviewed consensus can't be trusted today because most who believe in a young earth keep it to themselves because they fear being defunded, losing tenure, etc.

What would you say the personal beliefs of scientists have to do with the peer review process?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

What would you say the personal beliefs of scientists have to do with the peer review process?

Stuart

Bias

 

[Jefferson]

What would you say the personal beliefs of scientists have to do with the peer review process?

Stuart

Their primary personal belief is to be able to continue to feed their children which they won't be able to do if they espouse something that the current mob in control is against.